MikeD Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Yes, a BOD membership that, apparently, was stacked with Seven sympathizers. Witness the two at-large members who, after leaving the DCI board in 2010, are now on the BOD of a Seven member. So what is the problem with that? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) What does that mean? Would a TEP no longer get the revenue from their own show? If Blue Knights host a show, rent the venue, provide the manpower and take the financial risk, they should get to sell the tickets and make the money. Why should any other corps (particularly a corps not in the lineup) have any claim to that sales revenue without any skin in the game? But if a group of any seven corps want to get together, rent venues, do their own marketing and ticket sales, perform at the event, and keep the gate rather than giving it to a bunch of other corps who didn't have any skin in the game, they're greedy. Right? Edited March 14, 2013 by Slingerland 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 14, 2013 Author Share Posted March 14, 2013 But if a group of any seven corps want to get together, rent venues, do their own marketing and ticket sales, perform at the event, and keep the gate rather than giving it to a bunch of other corps who didn't have any skin in the game, they're greedy. Right? As I am sure you are aware, there is another distinction there. When a corps serves as a TEP (show host), as I described in my post, they should get whatever profit is left after covering all their show expenses, part of which is the DCI contract covering judges, contest coordinator, and fees for the performing corps. That DCI contract has a little profit built into it, which returns to the member corps via revenue sharing. When the G7 got together, they wanted their show series to change all three of the parameters that affect which corps make how much. - They wanted to claim the TEP revenue. If the G7 serve as TEP(s) for those shows, fair enough. - They wanted to claim all the appearance fee money by excluding other corps from their shows (mission accomplished). - They wanted to eliminate the part that goes to DCI (and thus, is shared with other member corps) by not working with the standard DCI show contract. This, of course, is not fair because DCI has skin in the game. The shows are part of their tour; they provide full panels of trained, experienced judges; they were operating the Murfreesboro show themselves; etc. There is a clear conflict of interest involved when a subset of corps declares themselves exempt from the DCI contract provisions that other corps must follow. Thank goodness the other DCI member corps are so magnanimous that they not only work this way, but even allow directors of those 7 corps back into the boardroom. Under different leadership, those 7 might have been gone three years ago. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) But if a group of any seven corps want to get together, rent venues, do their own marketing and ticket sales, perform at the event, and keep the gate rather than giving it to a bunch of other corps who didn't have any skin in the game, they're greedy. Right? Wrong; that would not be greedy; that would be the seven creating a completely different entity 'apart' from DCI!! However the seven wanting to do this under the guise of the DCI brand name, now 'that' is greedy!!! Edited March 14, 2013 by Stu 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) Just out of curiosity, why shouldn't every TEP have the option to tell DCI which corps they want at their show? Why would anyone want to buy a pig in a poke? Everyone here wants to say that all corps' market values are the same (all evidence to the contrary). Why not test the theory and open a door for event sponsors and individual corps to utilize their individual appeal in a way that benefits both parties? Is Jersey Surf more appealing than _____ to a TEP? Then why not let Surf benefit from that popularity? What is the overall benefit of telling them that they can't capitalize any further on the work they've put into making themselves appealing? Cixy's point re: having to pay DCI a hefty price tag just for the privilege of hosting a drum corps show ignores the point that the fee, by definition of covering way more than DCI's expenses, is money that's headed for others with no skin in the game. DCI is, in some ways, competing for dollars with the corps it's supposed to be promoting, by charging a hefty package fee for the privilege of giving those corps work. Edited March 14, 2013 by Slingerland 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) When you play dumb it doesn't become you. You're a pretty insightful poster, but on this one you're playing games. Over the course of several years all teams pretty much play each other both at home and on the road. It's not hard to see that sharing the ticket sales (and I think it's 60/40 but I'm too lazy to google it right now), over time, creates revenue sharing. But you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. Not playing dumb. Ticket sales are NOT distributed evenly -- there are BIG winners and losers and attendance can vary dramatically at some venues depending on who this week's opponent might be. Personals seat licenses (the right to buy a season ticket for a seat) are also retained (in their entirety) by the team. Your "point" misses the mark. There are no TV revenues in DCI so there's no inequity in advertising markets for which to compensate. Perhaps the point you were trying to make (that the NFL takes active measures to enforce competitive parity -- ie the salary cap) might be applied to DCI. In fact the existence of the salary cap (limiting spending) is evidence that the revenue side is NOT equal. Some teams have a LOT more to spend than others. ( In fact the top teams take in TWICE what the lowest teams earn) The salary cap idea falls flat on it's face when you try to apply it to DCI. There's a long list of corps who've hired "big names" to come in and make them competitive and been disappointed with the results. Finding the right mix in a creative/design team is largely trial and error. You bring in people and see if things work. Same thing on the instructional side. You bring folks in and keep the ones that fit your corps and your kids. Successful corps have hit on the right mix and work hard to keep that team together. A salary cap doesn't address this at all. The salary cap prevents teams from hoarding talent by PAYING MORE to bring the players in to the team. Drum corps performers are not paid. So the cap idea has no traction at all. The performers spend $3000 to participate -- they get to choose where to spend their money. End of story. As so many have pointed out, many of the performers in the top corps have marched elsewhere (at a lower tier corps). So those corps had (and have) first crack at retaining those kids. If a kid leaves a corps to perform next season at another (higher ranked) corps, who do you blame? The higher ranked corps didn't pay or recruit him. Why blame them? The fault (if there's fault to be assigned at all) lies with the lower tier corps who failed to engender the performer's desire to remain. Why do those kids want to leave for the upper corps? Largely because those corps write better shows and teach their kids to perform them more effectively. So the magic bullet is: design shows your kids *want* to perform AND that are within their grasp to perform. And then teach those kids *all* the skills they need to perform it. If a performer thinks he's on a team that is ACTIVELY moving up, there's a good chance they're going to want to stay. Being part of a team that's moving UP is exciting as ####. Which really isn't a magic bullet at all, is it? These are things that most instructors and designers know. So the difference is (IMHO) ....following through. Edited March 14, 2013 by corpsband 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 So what is the problem with that? I have no problem with what those board members do after they leave the board. But it does blow up your connotation that independent board members reached concensus through compromise to make decisions based on what's best for the whole activity. "Independent" and "at-large" is not meant to mean "members who vote their loyalties", and their actions after they left the BOD show proof of their loyalties. What's the use of having three Hops on the board (when one is WAY plenty enough) besides stacking the vote in his favor? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 The salary cap prevents teams from hoarding talent by PAYING MORE to bring the players in to the team. Drum corps performers are not paid. So the cap idea has no traction at all. The performers spend $3000 to participate -- they get to choose where to spend their money. End of story. Since some people (not you) are still trying to perform the useless exercise of comparing DCI to pro football...the salary cap in the NFL only applies to the players, not to those that are being looked at in these threads...the corps staffs. NFL Salary Cap Question 1.4 Who falls under the Salary Cap? Answer: The "Team Salary" falls under the Salary Cap. Team salary includes the amount a team must pay its current or former players under their player contracts. Notice emphasis on the word PLAYERS. The salary cap does not apply to coaches, assistants, trainers, and other personnel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 I have no problem with what those board members do after they leave the board. But it does blow up your connotation that independent board members reached concensus through compromise to make decisions based on what's best for the whole activity. "Independent" and "at-large" is not meant to mean "members who vote their loyalties", and their actions after they left the BOD show proof of their loyalties. What's the use of having three Hops on the board (when one is WAY plenty enough) besides stacking the vote in his favor? They were independent at-large members at the time they were voting. Where they went later is irrelevant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 14, 2013 Author Share Posted March 14, 2013 Just out of curiosity, why shouldn't every TEP have the option to tell DCI which corps they want at their show? Why would anyone want to buy a pig in a poke? Everyone here wants to say that all corps' market values are the same (all evidence to the contrary). No. At least, that is not what I am saying. I would expect that different corps would fetch different prices for their performances on an open market. But they all fetch higher prices performing in the DCI market. If that were not the case, enterprising corps would be performing on the open market just to raise funds. Enterprising corps have found ways to raise funds performing on the open market (BD Entertainment is one example), but with smaller derivative ensembles. Why not test the theory and open a door for event sponsors and individual corps to utilize their individual appeal in a way that benefits both parties? Is Jersey Surf more appealing than _____ to a TEP? Then why not let Surf benefit from that popularity? What is the overall benefit of telling them that they can't capitalize any further on the work they've put into making themselves appealing? One of the primary and founding purposes of DCI was to make touring practical for their member corps. Touring is not practical if the corps cannot book enough shows. Allowing show hosts to pick their lineups would inevitably lead to someone getting left out. While it is nice to imagine how all corps would supposedly pander become more entertaining, this is not the proper way to incentivize that behavior. Individual appeal (among other things) is already rewarded through souvenir sales. Cixy's point re: having to pay DCI a hefty price tag just for the privilege of hosting a drum corps show ignores the point that the fee, by definition of covering way more than DCI's expenses, is money that's headed for others with no skin in the game. DCI is, in some ways, competing for dollars with the corps it's supposed to be promoting, by charging a hefty package fee for the privilege of giving those corps work. DCI charges enough to make a small profit, not a "hefty" fee that is "way more" than their expenses - and I do not appreciate the inference that I said that. By the way, this new mantra that every dollar DCI makes is "competing with the corps" is nonsense. If that is how the G7 feel, they might as well leave at once. But then there is no point in creating a new circuit, because as soon as Music in Motion, Inc. makes their first dollar, they too will be "competing with the corps". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts