BRASSO Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) DCI programming is not the issue..... For youth, the programming is not broken, just a bit behind the times in comparison to other marching music activities. You ( nor I) do not know this. It is not Rocket Science to understand that in order for something to grow a larger audience base it must naturally become " more popular ". In order to become " more popular " it must appeal to a segment of the population that reaches beyond the very, very small group of youth that are... or intend to be.... music majors. There is simply no getting around this in my opinion. If DCI intends to have as its primary customer base the " Music Major "... those who pay for its experience.... then it naturally will find that its general audience growth opportunities substantially limited than what might otherwise be the case. You can't have both, imo. DCI long ago made the choice as to whom it sees as its " primary customer ", and what it sees as its " primary mission ". Its " primary customer " is a " student ", and its sees its " primary mission " as that of " education ". These are noble quests. But by their very nature these noble quests are fraught with conflicts when this runs up against a need to become " more popular " with the nation's GENERAL youth and for overall future general audience growth prospects when the youth of the nation mature and grow up. Edited March 21, 2013 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) Another option could be to simply sell DCI to a group that is already producing major events (not connected with marching music), that already has the management and already has the sponsor network. This is a very realistic option. It would retain the DCI brand... which would simply be just another "channel" in their portfolio. I'm not sure that I'd agree that for-profit is the best route forward, but if it did, this is certainly one option. Edited March 21, 2013 by Slingerland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I'm not sure that I'd agree that for-profit is the best route forward, but if it did, this is certainly one option. I just don't really see attracting the sort of talent as a non-profit org. The type of individual that coud take DCI form $10M to $30M+ a year is going to want probably around $4-5M for themselves, plus another $1-2M split among key people they would bring along, which is very reasonable. Non-profit is far too limiting for this sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 You won't hire those guys for what DCI is paying now, no. But there are plenty of non-profit organizations in the $18-30m range that have sports and arts events in their portfolios of activities. The CEOs at those organizations are typically in the $300k plus benefits and performance bonus range, not in the $1m range. The best can be close to $700k, but then again, those are the ones who are running $30m organizations; I'm pretty sure the member corps would be cool with paying someone that much if the person was able to triple the size of DCI from where it is now. $3250 x 7 = $22,750 $3250 x 18 = $58,500 $3250 x 40 = $130,000 For the amount corps will be willing to chip in, you will need a lot more corps. Those CEOs recruit Board members who use their business and personal connections to bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars (each) in outside support for their organizations. I thought we were hiring a highly paid CEO because he had all the contacts. Now you are saying we need a whole boardroom full of other people with contacts? That's the model to look at, not the PTA bake sale. I thought we were going to grow the customer base. That only grows the donor base, changing DCI from a maker to a taker. Corporate donors come and go. Witness Circle K, Knights Inn, A.J. Wright. I would rather DCI be earning $10,000,000 than begging for $30,000,000, maybe even getting it briefly, and then crashing in ruin when it goes away. If you think that the positive impact of what drum corps does and the potential appeal of the product is so insignificant that it deserves a bake sale mentality, then go for it. Oh wait, don't bother, you've already got it. Carry on. If growing audience and participation is what you now refer to as a "bake sale mentality", then get me an apron. But it would be a good idea for the current Board to sit down with the member corps and have an honest discussion as to what the investment would look like to build something more substantial. First order of business would be committing to the idea of substantial growth - set a target for what you want in hard numbers re: audience size and revenues. Sounds reasonable. That is what they did in 2009, when developing that business plan. The actual plan for achieving those results would have to be in the hands of the executive team they hire to do the building. I thought we were hiring one highly paid CEO with all the necessary contacts - or one who could recruit BOD members with the necessary contacts. Now we have to hire a whole team of people? And at that point, the corps themselves would have to agree to give over a lot of the power they now have in terms of product, tour schedule, etc, and trust that they've hired the right team to build the brand. Oh. Then this whole post was a waste of your time, since that will never happen. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c mor Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 While the NFL is a Sports non-profit it is far from being charitable it does limit the number of teams; I suggested the PGA because the sanctioning body a) appeals to the local areas by helping local charities via the various tournaments, and b) the body has rules of entry but does not limit the number. As for the 'corps' being adult professional for-profit that could work as in a bunch of Blast type organizations, but is also probably not that realistic. Check out the Little League World Series, that is my number one choice on a change of DCI structure. (and it gets us away from the 'pretense' that DCI is a Major League). So... "Marching Music's Little League" ??? :satisfied:/> just pokin' some fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 DCI has no future as a non-profit. It has reached the ceiling of this sort of structure. There is no such ceiling. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) Oh. Then this whole post was a waste of your time, since that will never happen. Then you'll see a group of corps - more than 7, no doubt - who'll decide that they don't want to be stuck on a ship that is going down, and they'll create something new to take DCI's place. The status quo really isn't an option, and neither is "growing" an audience from 25,000 at Finals to 15,000 at Finals, and sticking the suckers who show up with higher ticket prices to make up for the difference in sales volume. BTW, the cost per corps, if you divvy up by 40, would only be $5k each to bring in a director who could bring with him the contacts that help make selling and creating new markets for drum corps a reality. The current salaries would be deducted from any additional expense. Only some drum corps people would find the idea of spending an additional $200k in order to increase gross revenues by $4 or 5 million to be a bad investment. But businesses ARE the the people who work there; their ideas, their work, their managerial ability. Failing to invest enough to bring in the best people for the needs at hand is the type of mistake you don't get to make too often. Edited March 21, 2013 by Slingerland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 How it would work... All IP assets (brand, video archive, etc.) is transferred from the current DCI, Inc. to a new for profit entity that is wholly owned by DCI, Inc. 100% of shares of DCI, Inc. are sold to an investor for a nominal sum. In return, investor agrees to a guaranteed minimim level of compensation paid to DCI, Inc. on a specific timescale (easing the cashflow problems). Investor doesn't get into the mess of how that money is actually distributed, just writes the checks to DCI, Inc. which distributes it how they will. I have seen you make proposals like this for quite some time now. I have also seen people point out that the part I underlined is a dealbreaker. The video history of DCI is under DCI copyright, and thus is a significant part of the glue that holds DCI together. How do you propose to convince DCI to relinquish that - by repeating the proposal over and over until they agree? How quickly we all dropped the top-18 idea and moved on to the fire-Dan-Acheson idea. Times like this make it difficult to believe these "ideas" are not just Trojan horses for the G7 proposals. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 21, 2013 Author Share Posted March 21, 2013 Then you'll see a group of corps - more than 7, no doubt - who'll decide that they don't want to be stuck on a ship that is going down, and they'll create something new to take DCI's place. So be it. Honestly, if the directors of the 7 share the viewpoints of the two of you here (that we should fire the DCI staff and focus resources to bring in high-priced strangers to take a blind shot at wooing corporate sponsors), and the rest of the corps disagree (would prefer to grow the activity via participation, audience and product), then I think both sides would be better off free from each other, and free to pursue their different agendas unabated (for the first time in 15 years). BTW, the cost per corps, if you divvy up by 40, would only be $5k each to bring in a director who could bring with him the contacts that help make selling and creating new markets for drum corps a reality. The current salaries would be deducted from any additional expense. Yes, I know. That is what I was pointing out. a. Top corps (i.e. the 7) might only be willing/able to pony up $3250 apiece, judging from Music in Motion, Inc., experience. b. Have not established whether other member corps will be willing to pony up at all. c. In your vision, there would be less member corps (18 instead of 22-23). d. Non-member corps have no incentive to contribute to the cause - unless you are considering making all 40 active corps DCI members, in order to get them on board. e. Even with all 40 corps contributing $3250 each, that does not cover the salary difference you are talking about. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I have seen you make proposals like this for quite some time now. I have also seen people point out that the part I underlined is a dealbreaker.The video history of DCI is under DCI copyright, and thus is a significant part of the glue that holds DCI together. How do you propose to convince DCI to relinquish that - by repeating the proposal over and over until they agree? Can't really understand why this would be a dealbreaker. If it is, then someone isn't thinking clearly. How much revenue is really being generated each year from these archives? This small amount is worth walking away from a deal that could actually provide guaranteed stability and growth? How quickly we all dropped the top-18 idea and moved on to the fire-Dan-Acheson idea. Times like this make it difficult to believe these "ideas" are not just Trojan horses for the G7 proposals. Again, no ideas I ever post on here are anything but my own. My views are definitely not those of any director out there or any organization. Several people do tend to go on about the same sort of things... as some of them are pretty obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts