TOC/G7 Related Discussion

[cixelsyd]

RE: Whitewater, put 4,000 in the stands for prelims on Saturday day and 9,000 in the stands for the night show, and a college stadium in the middle of nowhere sold 13,000 tickets, vs a one-ticket event in a major metro area selling, let's say 13,000, 15,000 tickets, but with a lease that is undoubtedly much more costly on a per ticket basis.

The big city show is not an improvement, purely from numbers standpoint. The profit margin would be better with a different structure in a different venue. Better profit margin = more money available for the corps.

Your version of going back to what worked in the past?

You are full of surprises today. This is a departure from the G7 stance. And IIRC, Daniel Ray has also favored bigger shows in bigger markets, so you two will have something to discuss.

So to flesh out your recent suggestions, say we split the tour so that the top 18 do not all meet in one place until Indy. The San Antonio and Atlanta shows, which you contend are high-rent venues, would be replaced by lower cost venues. With the tour divided, maybe each of those Saturdays could see two focus shows staged in different locations with their respective halves of the DCI tour lineup. Top corps would be evenly distributed between the two tour branches. Your contentions are:

a. Attendance/revenue in Indy will increase due to increased competitive suspense.

b. Cheaper venues for the last two Saturdays in July might improve revenue.

c. (my observation) Attendance at either of the split shows probably will not match Atlanta/San Antonio, but combined attendance of the pair might be greater.

Lots of numbers to crunch, but the idea is well worth discussing.

I keep seeing these references to 'bloated" budgets for the corps with the top budget numbers, and yet, I've looked at a couple of corps' numbers; the vast majority of the funds are going to food, transportation, and insurance, not instruction or management expenses..

Not sure that level of detail is available to us. What are you suggesting? Do the Cavaliers eat that much more than the Bluecoats? Are the Cavaliers a bad insurance risk? I would at least expect that their food and transportation expenses would be very similar, and that therefore, the cost differences must be elsewhere.

When most of the bigger corps are realizing more money on ancillary items like t shirt sales than they are from the performances, it's hard to say that things are in relative balance.

Then if there really is a corps making more money on shirts than shows, maybe they should get out of drum corps and focus solely on the T-shirt business.

Their members aren't paying markedly more in tour fees than members in some other corps that aren't offering the same level of instruction or competitive environment, so if you looked at it from a member's perspective, some of those corps are actually offering better values to their kids than some of the less competitive corps. Why would we hold up corps that give less bang for the buck as the ideal?

Who is declaring that the ideal?

I do not understand why you keep doing this. Sometimes, you offer worthwhile insight. You could use your time to discuss that constructively and refine ideas into actionable suggestions. Yes, it is also fun to post zingers about T-shirt sales and make up strawmen about lower ranking corps - but that fun will only make people more resistant to your ideas.

[Slingerland]

Do the Cavaliers eat that much more than the Bluecoats? Are the Cavaliers a bad insurance risk? I would at least expect that their food and transportation expenses would be very similar, and that therefore, the cost differences must be elsewhere.

According to the numbers, the two organizations' expenditures are very similar. Take out Cavaliers' WGI program, and factor in the higher expense of insurance and rentals in a major urban market vs a much smaller town, and they're not far away from each other.

But I find it interesting that you're acknowledging that you don't really know what the budget breakdowns are. I have to wonder if this is a situation similar to the average American taxpayer, who is so completely in the dark regarding our national budgets on that they believe that cutting foreign aid to "only 10%", for example, will have a big effect on the bottom line. It wouldn't, since foreign aid is already only about 1% of our overall expenses.

Look at the reported numbers, and you see that a few corps ARE reporting more in merchandise sales profits than performance fees (including Cavaliers, according to their 2011 990). Why anyone would get snarky about that is a bit of a mystery.

===

My point regarding Whitewater and the other 70s/80s regionals had to do with DCI's claims that overall attendance is up because of Atlanta, et al. My guess is that it's more or less the same, because of the two-event nature of the old school regionals. But it's possible that a case could be made that the regionals might do well to go back to the old format, where you have 75% of a full roster of past finalists, and are playing in college stadia rather than domes. As an experiment, go back to a prelims/finals on the same day format, just for the fun of it. 15 corps show up, and only 8 make the night show, and you've given people a reason to attend both events.

My central points are all pretty consistent. DCI, as a model of efficiency for passing through the dollars created by the drum corps' products, isn't working as well as it could and should. If it was, several of the biggest names in the association wouldn't be talking about bolting. Either they're going to need to figure out a way to increase their efficiency (increasing the amount of cash available), they're going to get serious about working with the corps to make more sellable products (they have "an artistic director", supposedly; is he actually approving everyone's show concepts and designs?), or they're going to have to find ways to start bringing in a lot more outside money to support the activity than they do now.

Any of the three would be fine, a combination would be best. But SOMETHING needs to get moving, and sooner rather than later.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Slingerland

[garfield]

I guess I didn't think I needed to specify that the monies would be in addition to what the payouts are now, to get a total in the $250-300k range per corps. The $2m amount was derived by taking $110-120k and multiplying it by 18 corps.

Now whose Freudian slip is showing?

Ahh.. Well, OK, you're forgiven. But 3 points off for not showing your work. :tongue:/>

Two things, though. The average payouts now are not the average $150m you quote, and why 18 corps?

[cixelsyd]

But I find it interesting that you're acknowledging that you don't really know what the budget breakdowns are. I have to wonder if this is a situation similar to the average American taxpayer, who is so completely in the dark regarding our national budgets on that they believe that cutting foreign aid to "only 10%", for example, will have a big effect on the bottom line. It wouldn't, since foreign aid is already only about 1% of our overall expenses.

Look at the reported numbers, and you see that a few corps ARE reporting more in merchandise sales profits than performance fees (including Cavaliers, according to their 2011 990). Why anyone would get snarky about that is a bit of a mystery.

Oh, "merchandising"? Yes, I am aware that there are cases where a corps makes more from merchandise than from appearance fees/revenue sharing. Your post made it sound like T-shirt sales alone were outpacing DCI payouts.

[garfield]

RE: Whitewater, put 4,000 in the stands for prelims on Saturday day and 9,000 in the stands for the night show, and a college stadium in the middle of nowhere sold 13,000 tickets, vs a one-ticket event in a major metro area selling, let's say 13,000, 15,000 tickets, but with a lease that is undoubtedly much more costly on a per ticket basis.

The big city show is not an improvement, purely from numbers standpoint. The profit margin would be better with a different structure in a different venue. Better profit margin = more money available for the corps.

I keep seeing these references to 'bloated" budgets for the corps with the top budget numbers, and yet, I've looked at a couple of corps' numbers; the vast majority of the funds are going to food, transportation, and insurance, not instruction or management expenses.. When most of the bigger corps are realizing more money on ancillary items like t shirt sales than they are from the performances, it's hard to say that things are in relative balance.

Most members are paying about the same in tour fees across the board, so if you looked at it from a member's perspective, some corps are actually offering better values to their kids than others. Why would we hold up orgs that give less bang for the buck as the ideal?

I'm not suggesting that your comment is full of strawmen, but it's hard to verify your contentions without seeing the numbers. Instead of asking the rest of us to go scan the numbers to verify your contentions, would you mind copying-and-pasting the validation of your contention here, please?

And to make the comparison meaningful, I'd suggest you show the budgets of one or two "non-bloated" corps as well.

For instance, if Crown is able to feed they're kids for $2.90 a day each (an actual number from they, themselves, two years ago) and Cadets are spending $5.40 per kid, are you suggesting that Crown is starving their kids to tour? Is a $5 per day food budget something that a prospective members asks about prior to auditioning? (In sales lingo, the higher amount spent may be a feature, but it is a benefit?). Is BD a better value than Madison for a kid from Wisconsin if said kid has to pay for flights to get to camps when he could drive to Madison? What, exactly, makes a higher tour transportation budget a value if the corps are traveling the same distance and playing the same shows?

If Santa Clara can (arguably the most solid balance sheet in the activity) spends $1.3mm to come in 5th or 6th, but BD spends $1.7mm to come in first, which is the better value to the kids considering the entire season from the MM's perspective?

[Slingerland]

Ahh.. Well, OK, you're forgiven. But 3 points off for not showing your work. />

Two things, though. The average payouts now are not the average $150m you quote, and why 18 corps?

I did some spot checking, and on the 990s, you have Blue Stars reporting $142k, Cavaliers $159k. Put them together and you wind up in the $150k land. Are there other DCI payments that they're showing under different categories? Cavaliers show their member fees and their income from their hosted competitions, but those two, plus performance fees (159k), merchandise sales and their charitable support makes up almost the whole enchilada, income-wise, so I'm not sure where any additional DCI monies would be reflected.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Slingerland

[whitedawn]

If Santa Clara can (arguably the most solid balance sheet in the activity) spends $1.3mm to come in 5th or 6th, but BD spends $1.7mm to come in first, which is the better value to the kids considering the entire season from the MM's perspective?

BD provides exactly zero housing to the members until tour starts in June.

[garfield]

BD provides exactly zero housing to the members until tour starts in June.

Even camps?

[normy diploome]

Even camps?

Correct info from White Dawn, including camps unless there has been a change this season. Besides the lack of sleep area provided for camps, certain corps have different policies regarding meals and snacks during camps. It is my understanding that BD members have to provide their own sack lunches at camps and some rehearsals. Regiment had a system where the individual kids were given time to go to local fast food joints at their own expense or pay for a meal at the Rockford College cafeteria at their own expense. Again there may have been a recent change. Cadets and Cavies provide everything to members within the camp fees charged. Yup Cadets do charge more than the usual and the kids get excellent cuisine and plenty of it. But they pride themselves on moving more than many. I am not absolute on what Crown is currently providing for the diminished 2.60 vs. Cadets 5K.

Ironic comments about Cavies' insurance as founder Don Warren is a professional insurance man. Ditto with Kevin Smith, one of the founders of Carolina Crown. I would presume that they would have the best insurance for their corps and organization. Most of the corps participate in the insurance plan sponsored by the Boy Scouts of America. Almost every kid who signs a DCI corps contract becomes an Explorer/Venture scout member to get that insurance package.

[cixelsyd]

I did some spot checking, and on the 990s, you have Blue Stars reporting $142k, Cavaliers $159k. Put them together and you wind up in the $150k land.

- when Blue Stars were in the TOC series. Two preceding years, they got $110k.

Are there other DCI payments that they're showing under different categories? Cavaliers show their member fees and their income from their hosted competitions, but those two, plus performance fees (159k), merchandise sales and their charitable support makes up almost the whole enchilada, income-wise, so I'm not sure where any additional DCI monies would be reflected.

Fan Network revenue could be in a number of different places. Saw at least one corps that listed a separate line item for it in their 990.