TOC/G7 Related Discussion

[cixelsyd]

Stop and think about it for a second...

Regardless of how you may wish to interpret any justification, how successful is any CEO going to be that had been fired due to lack of confidence/decisive leadership upon being reinstated?

That is a good question. Along those same lines, we should also ask how successful G7 directors will be as DCI BOD members after their removals/resignations in 2010.

Dan Acheson does not have the same structural authority normally associated with the term "CEO". I think the BOD question is a bit more important.

Dan is a really nice guy. That is actually the problem. DCI does not need a nice guy in that role right now. They need a stone cold executive with decades of experience running an events company producing in the range of $40-50M+ annually.

There is no possible path to growth for DCI, and subsequently member corps, without this type of highly-experienced and decisive leadership.

Tony Schlecta provided stone cold, decisive leadership with decades of experience. That is precisely what the DCI corps directors wanted to move away from. They will not go back.

[cixelsyd]

I'd submit that there's a damage done to the brand by identifying certain corps that are really teaching corps, not WC competitive corps, as being "World Class."

Show sponsors and audiences should be confident that if they're paying WC fees for the corps who perform, that a base level of competitive competency will be on display - and that every corps described as World Class is an improvement over a run of the mill BOA marching band. Right now, that's not the case.

Back to hurling baseless, inaccurate insults at the lower WC corps?

I can only speculate that either your impression of a "run of the mill" BOA band was formed at the Grand Nationals finals, or that your impression of Pioneer was formed on June 22, 2012. Because if you actually saw the corps after opening weekend, and the bands that actually are run of the mill competitors, I think even you would admit that any world class DCI program (even Pioneer) produces a better product, as we would expect given the increased, focused rehearsal time WC corps have.

The number of corps who would be re-assigned to an appropriate level is relatively small - I'm pretty sure that I've suggested here before that the process be set up to take a few seasons, so that each corps currently in WC is aware that it's a play-in situation for their status.

I do not recall you previously mentioning a multi-year phase in.

And IF, by putting pressure to perform or move on, it spurs an increase in proficiency and marketability by enough of the lowest ranking WC corps now so that you could make an honest case that the "World Class" league should be 20 corps, then great. Go for 20, but with an understanding that failing to maintain their edge might be cause for someone being dropped down to the mid-level league.

Why not 22, then?

You cannot seem to decide on a basis for who is in/out of your premier league model. If it is so hard for one person to decide, imagine getting the DCI directors to decide.

You insisted earlier that 18 was the right number. In fact, you continue to make your case for that in this post too:

I don't think you can wave a magic wand and create more WC corps. It's too hard to do now, and DCI would take a long time to get to the point where they have enough cash flow to provide enough support to just 18 corps at WC, if that's the way you went.

So then who cares how good 19 and 20 get, if we can only afford 18?

[cixelsyd]

"But MLE is no longer a joke. In the last year, it has organized 85 contests with nearly $600,000 in prizes. It has secured sponsorships from Coca-Cola, Harrah's, Netflix, Orbitz, Pizza Hut, Smirnoff, and Waffle House. This year, it recruited Pepto-Bismol, Old Navy, and Heinz to sponsor the hot-dog contest. In addition to MLE's TV programming for Fox, SpikeTV, and other networks, ESPN now pays the league to broadcast the hot-dog contest, with 40,000 spectators on hand and another 1.5 million households watching."

Deep Throat - The depravity of Major League Eating

That info is actually a bit out of date...

"Cable sports network ESPN said Thursday that it has extended its deal to broadcast the Nathan's Famous Fourth of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest through 2017. Terms of the pact with Major League Eating were not disclosed. Last year almost 9 million people watched Joey Chestnut win his fifth straight title on ESPN"

ESPN extends deal to air hot-dog-eating contest

DCI can't even afford to PAY ESPN to broadcast finals on ESPN2... while major league eating is renewed through 2017.... with 9 million viewers!!!!

Again, the issue with DCI is not lack of being a major league... it is lack of major league management able to cut major league deals. It is that simple.

Make it for-profit.... headhunt the type of experienced management needed who are VERY generously incentivized based on % of growth. That is the only real path forward.

To do this, there needs to be an objective assessment of the current situation, with recommendations, performed by a big name consulting firm. This should be used by the head hunter in shopping the deal around to potential CEO candidates (no one worth their salt would consider the opportunity without it).

Seriously? Because some freak show attracts the brief attention of 9 million viewers, DCI must suck at marketing, therefore we should take all our money and hire pricey consultants to recommend what the pricey replacement CEO should transform DCI into?

Hair on fire.

You know, there is a logical reason for marketers to be envious of Major League Eating. They have a huge edge over us. Their participant base is much larger. Maybe the alumni of drum corps number over 10,000; extend it across marching band, 100,000s or even over a million. But there are 7 billion people with prior eating experience. That is a huge demographic. No wonder ESPN is buying in.

[cixelsyd]

I'm not a G7 anything, but I don't get why everyone doesn't let it go and focus on the current situation. That proposal was never more than a bad idea, and died a pretty quick death.

Not really. The same 7 corps are pushing for many of the same things within DCI, and people here (even you) are promoting many of the same principles and specifics the G7 Report contained.

DCI's dead in the water, and has been for a long, long time.

Oh, not again. So the sky already fell?

Not sinking, but not really moving either. Audiences are stable, but still down significantly from a few decades ago, the public exposure to the activity has been reduced, and the number of avenues open to the corps to find enough funding to support themselves are limited because of DCI's 'tied house' business model.

What "avenues" of funding are limited? Sorry, but DCI does not have the kind of power to prevent other organizations from pursuing whatever avenue of funding they wish (unless you consider the money of other corps to be an "avenue of funding").

In their current state, they have an inability to compensate the corps - ALL corps - at anywhere near the amounts they need to survive.

It is not the job of DCI to fully fund a corps. You said so yourself. But you keep making statements like this one, which infer otherwise.

You won't fix that with more of the same. It's going to take a radical overhaul to modernize the product and make it more appealing to the type of corporate sponsors that would normally be salivating at the opportunity to get their brand associated with what drum corps offers.

What does drum corps offer to corporate sponsors, in your opinion?

[cixelsyd]

The proper response to the original proposal would have been to call their bluff, not cave in to their demands.

How did they "cave in to their demands"? Last time I checked:

a. The G7 did not have two votes each, while lower WC corps have none.

b. The G7 do not have Friday and Sunday to themselves.

c. Dan Acheson is not fired.

This isn't Machiavelli - it's Board Room Dynamics 101. And no super human strength is needed to carry it off - it comes down to the confidence to know that you're in the power position, and not the one who should be begging for your girlfriend not to leave.

Real confidence does not demand boardroom brinkmanship. I would suggest that the rebalancing of the BOD back in 2010 was a measured and appropriate response to the situation, executed by a confident majority that knew, and still knows, that no further demonstrations are necessary to show who is boss.

Whether the organization intended to or not, the compromise position they struck was exactly the wrong thing to do, since it didn't really put down the insurrection, it actually ended up giving legitimacy to the idea of 7 corps being different than everyone else, making it somewhat self-defeating.

Maybe they think these 7 corps are different. They certainly behave differently. Do you think they are different, or just the same as any other top 18 corps?

[Slingerland]

Hmm...Seems someone's gotten their head around the idea of there being 18 major corps.

What the G7 attempted was, in effect, a coup. What they ended up getting was the TOC shows, which was arguably the primary thing they wanted out of it (the Board reorganization plan was so crazy that it's hard to believe any of them took it seriously). Now, while I don't disagree that any group of corps who want to should be able to produce their own events and keep the proceeds - I am a capitalist pig, after all - I also don't believe that it was in the interest of DCI to accept a deal like that at the end of a gun. The process was the problem, and the response essentially punted, rather than holding the 7's collective hands to the hot stove.

Oh well, water under the bridge. DCI still needs a strong central voice if they're going to move the ship forward again, and I'm not sure that the current makeup of the org is able to take on that role.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Slingerland

[garfield]

G, I think you've broken this thread. :tongue:/>

Wouldn't be the first time. :tongue:/>

[garfield]

The proper response to the original proposal would have been to call their bluff, not cave in to their demands. Because I'll tell you exactly what would have happened.

The three midwestern corps would have fallen in line. Looking at Regiment, Cavaliers, and Bluecoats, there's nothing in their history that indicates they feel more connected to Gibbs and Hopkins than they do DCI. That would leave SCV, Crown, BD, and YEA. Well, keeping in mind the pure math - four corps doesn't much of a circuit make - it's also highly unlikely that Vanguard's Board would have gotten behind a plan to shove off with only the other three corps as their partners - which puts four of the seven back in the DCI tent.

At that point, you've isolated the three major problem directors within that group, and this type of isolation has the effect of telling them "ok, put up, or let everyone else make fun of you for being blowhards", which effectively strips them of any power they may have ever had.

This isn't Machiavelli - it's Board Room Dynamics 101. And no super human strength is needed to carry it off - it comes down to the confidence to know that you're in the power position, and not the one who should be begging for your girlfriend not to leave. Whether the organization intended to or not, the compromise position they struck was exactly the wrong thing to do, since it didn't really put down the insurrection, it actually ended up giving legitimacy to the idea of 7 corps being different than everyone else, making it somewhat self-defeating.

The power in any negotiation belongs to the man who's willing to walk away from the deal. DCI 's executive team and the other corps should have embraced that philosophy, and they didn't. And all that says to me is that they don't have enough steel in the Board room and enough confidence that they really are the brand that matters.

This isn't taking sides one way or another - there's no emotion in this observation. It's purely business. There was an opportunity to use the energy that discussion brought to the table to create a newly focused and energized DCI, ready to get out of its mom jeans and into its Corvette - but instead, we got the Missouri Compromise.

This is so crazy! Am I in a parallel universe? Really?

What you describe above in the first sentence is EXACTLY what happened! Except you have to substitute "They", as in the BOD. They summarily held their line, to the extent of invoking legal passeges from the by-laws to enforce their line, and forcefully rejected the Seven's plan and voted to invalidate the prior 3 + 2 action of firing Dan. How much more hardball, courtroom and boardroom steel can you possibly expect? The remaining members of DCI planted their feet in the sand, and told the mutinists to go pound sand, and took the activity out of their hands. If you look at it objectively, it worked and, IMO, it was a beautiful thing. I think of the "steel" (your term) that it took for those O-15 to stare down the wizards and I wonder how much more you think the activity needs. The ED is the representative that facilitates the director's will and, at that moment, Dan worked for the then-leaders. What was he supposed to do AT THAT MOMENT? Tell the O-15 to go to hell and that HE was taking command? It wasn't HE who orchestrated the rescuing of the organization - that action started in the O-15. The contention of the other directors in the room was that the leadership had FAILED in their FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY. The O-15 were bound by their by-lawed written, and legally-confirmed FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY to act in the best interests of the activity, and that, according to the opinion of the O-15, to fulfill that duty they had to reverse the actions of a few on the BOD and REMOVE them.

Could Jack Welch have shown more "STEEL"?

Then you have the perfect hindsight to describe exactly what would have happened if DAN had done EXACTLY what was done by the collective O-15. How in God's name can you so accurately predict the future from a revisionist-history standpoint? What you describe is one (even likely) outcome, but you analyze from a position of a businessman. These are NOT businessmen and this is NOT about such business strategies, and the proof is that they did NOT do what you suggest they would have done! This fight is primarily about one thing: The Seven do not any longer want to play under the conditions where their futures are dictated to them by the other members of the collective. They believe they can support themselves without DCI, and are trying to use that as a fear-mongering technique to bully the other members of the collective to agree with their direction for the activity.

This is where your perfect foresight is usually brought up. OF COURSE the activity is going to fold in September! Anybody who doesn't see that is not looking at reality, or is a bad businessman, or is simply not paying attention, or is a flat out buffoon! WE"VE HEARD IT ALL!

I also happen to agree with the tact the O-15 took after claiming control - the did the magnanimous thing and compromised - offered a fig leaf - the Seven in the form of a plan crafted to allow them to test their theory - the TOC. You call that a mistake. I don't. Even in the board room and in all negotiations, the best way to get someone down off their high horse is to give them a ladder. You see, I think that it's possible that elements of the Seven's plan could be valid and beneficial to the activity. The O-15 feel the same way, I'd bet. You characterize the TOC as a "compromise" and connote it as the O-15 "giving in" and therefor they are weak. I say far from that. As it stands at this minute, if the TOC is successful, then DCI will benefit from that success.

They were also smart to limit current elections to one year. In every contract negotiation I'd like to have both a put and a call feature so I leave myself maximum flexibility to change my mind in the future. In this regard, both camps will benefit from sitting down and redressing the year. Keeps things fresh. There will be a time for long-term commitments, but only after the camps have danced together a bit. That's fine. It's the safe thing. No one wants to feel trapped at this point. But, you imply that these terms show weakness, in Dan, in the O-15 "leadership". Hogwash.

God.

"It comes down to the confidence to know that you're in the power position..."

This is EXACTLY what the O-15 did. And you call them, and Dan, WEAK as a result.

I'm living in a parallel universe. Cats are sleeping with dogs.

[garfield]

Hmm...Seems someone's gotten their head around the idea of there being 18 major corps.

What the G7 attempted was, in effect, a coup. What they ended up getting was the TOC shows, which was arguably the primary thing they wanted out of it (the Board reorganization plan was so crazy that it's hard to believe any of them took it seriously). Now, while I don't disagree that any group of corps who want to should be able to produce their own events and keep the proceeds - I am a capitalist pig, after all - I also don't believe that it was in the interest of DCI to accept a deal like that at the end of a gun. The process was the problem, and the response essentially punted, rather than holding the 7's collective hands to the hot stove.

Oh well, water under the bridge. DCI still needs a strong central voice if they're going to move the ship forward again, and I'm not sure that the current makeup of the org is able to take on that role.

Oh, well, indeed, because your argument is CRAP and your description of the events and, ergo, the POINT of what happened, is revisionist fiction, so you bail out with the hard-hitting, dynamic phrase of "DCI still needs a strong central voice..", and you seem to continue to not grasp the fact that they DO have a strong central voice IN THE O-15.

It's the fact that that voice is, apparently, stronger than the Seven IS THE POINT THAT THEY DON'T LIKE! It wouldn't matter who was delivering that message, Dan A or Jack Welch. The Seven don't like that message and they seem willing to hold that as validation to threaten to leave the activity.

And a few here have strong conviction that THEY see the future and that the activity is going to blow up this September.

HOGWASH!

Your hunch is just a hunch. It's not ordained by Gods or wizards. You're just guessing about the future. Which is fine.

I'm willing to take that bet.

Now what?

[garfield]

Whether the organization intended to or not, the compromise position they struck was exactly the wrong thing to do, since it didn't really put down the insurrection, it actually ended up giving legitimacy to the idea of 7 corps being different than everyone else, making it somewhat self-defeating.

The power in any negotiation belongs to the man who's willing to walk away from the deal. DCI 's executive team and the other corps should have embraced that philosophy, and they didn't. And all that says to me is that they don't have enough steel in the Board room and enough confidence that they really are the brand that matters.

This isn't taking sides one way or another - there's no emotion in this observation. It's purely business. There was an opportunity to use the energy that discussion brought to the table to create a newly focused and energized DCI, ready to get out of its mom jeans and into its Corvette - but instead, we got the Missouri Compromise.

Do you really think that the leaders of the Seven NEED validation by the O-15 of their superiority or that of their solution? Again, I don't think you fully grasp the level of self-inflation that has been allowed to perpetuate. The SEVEN are stating that there is simply no-doubt that they are the draw and that the activity will collapse without them (well, maybe they haven't said that, but YOU do) - regardless of what anyone else says. Does THAT sound like something you'd hear from someone that needs validation of their position? I sure don't.

But you spin it some how that the exact actions you said should have been taken, and were, somehow validate the Seven's position? Good God, the room is spinning! What's next, a rabbit out of a hat, or sawing a woman in half?

You said it: "No steel, all confidence" and that perfectly describes the Seven. It's the O-15 that has the steel even if they do lack a little confidence from the constant drumming by the Seven that they aren't worth supporting. But, by GOD!, they SAVED this activity in May, 2010 if only to survive to fight another day. And it took STEEL to do what the O-15 did, make no mistake.