Re-Invention of DCI

[garfield]

... DCI's focus should be on creating the opportunities for the organizations to realize enough income from their activities (the "how") so that the corps themselves can do a great job of providing the "what" to an ever-widening pool of young people.

And let's not forget that DCI's mandate is to return as much revenue as possible to the corps, not "all the revenue that each corps believes it needs to accomplish its mission", regardless of what that mission is.

Now, specifically, what will the new leadership DO to increase the "as much as possible" part of that mandate? Book different cities and risk the weather?

[Slingerland]

Instead of changing the leadership to promote the same message why not put energy into promoting the common message that is shared by all corps?

Because the way to provide funds for the corps to do what they do isn't to appeal to the widows and orphans element of drum corps. Why? Because trying to communicate that message looks like this;

"How is this drum corps thing different from my school marching band?"

It's not really that different, at the external level, it's the internal dynamics that are different.

"What do you mean 'nternal dynamics?' They play instruments on a football field."

But unlike the band, the members have a lot more individual responsibility and there's a higher demand for them to work really hard.

"So it's basically school band, but a little better? How much does it cost to do it?"

Depends, but most of them are spending $1,000 - $2,500 a summer.

"For band? Sorry, if they can afford that much money, they don't need my help."

So sure, keep trying to sell that angle. Bake Sale USA, to the masses who aren't going to be moved by that message. How do we know this? Because that's the message that's been being peddled for the last several decades. The benefits of drum corps are real, but too opaque to effectively communicate to a population who doesn't have enough attention span to parse the details.

But if you give them an actual product to see and buy, and you can target them with a more effective, more exciting pitch than is currently employed, you have the chance of getting them to SPEND money on tickets, rather than 'give' money as donations. In the end, the color of the money is the same, but it's always easier to get people to give money in exchange for a good or service than it is to get them to simply fork over money because your cause is worth it. The types of funders who support major initiatives in underserved communities aren't going to be swayed by DCI, but the corps themselves could shake some corporation funding loose for initiatives that would expand the activity's reach into underserved neighborhoods - IF they had a bigger base of funding (via product/ticket sales) for their core business operation. Providing that core financial support should be DCI's focus.

==

If the reason not to focus on the major metro markets for drum corps - New York, the Bay area, Boston, and Chicago - is that they don't have domed stadiums, that's not much of a justification. Most existing fans have to be convinced to go see shows in domed locations, since the acoustics are uniformly awful, and in the meantime you have tens of thousands of people who are already interested in drum corps in the major metros who are passed over with the major shows. That idea would make sense to absolutely no one outside the activity.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Slingerland

[garfield]

Because the way to provide funds for the corps to do what they do isn't to appeal to the widows and orphans element of drum corps. Why? Because trying to communicate that message looks like this;

"How is this drum corps thing different from my school marching band?"

It's not really that different, at the external level, it's the internal dynamics that are different.

"What do you mean 'nternal dynamics?' They play instruments on a football field."

But unlike the band, the members have a lot more individual responsibility and there's a higher demand for them to work really hard.

"So it's basically school band, but a little better? How much does it cost to do it?"

Depends, but most of them are spending $1,000 - $2,500 a summer.

"For band? Sorry, if they can afford that much money, they don't need my help."

You actually did a better job "selling" what DCI IS a little earlier:

"The goal of any non-profit charitable organization is to change human hearts and grow human capacity.The belief that only those who are in the hellholes of the inner city deserve service is actually tied to the Puritan belief he mentioned that only some people are "deserving" of a charitable service. Giving young people an opportunity where they're required to expand their own capacity, as leaders and individuals, is a service to the society, regardless of the incomes of those kids' parents. A couple kids I've helped have gone on to be educators, two of them in inner city neighborhood schools. Those drum corps donations are having an impact in ways that go beyond just the day to day experience of getting on a bus and driving overnight to Akron."

But because you wimped out in your explanation of what drum corps IS, you resorted to claiming that not enough people support it because (by connotation) it's a "rich kid's hobby". You allowed that perception to come forth, and did nothing to dissuade it, by the wimpy explanation you gave. Is that the pitch you'd give to the mega-corporation of what drum corps is?

So sure, keep trying to sell that angle. Bake Sale USA, to the masses who aren't going to be moved by that message. How do we know this? Because that's the message that's been being peddled for the last several decades. The benefits of drum corps are real, but too opaque to effectively communicate to a population who doesn't have enough attention span to parse the details.

But if you give them an actual product to see and buy, and you can target them with a more effective, more exciting pitch than is currently employed, you have the chance of getting them to SPEND money on tickets, rather than 'give' money as donations. In the end, the color of the money is the same, but it's always easier to get people to give money in exchange for a good or service than it is to get them to simply fork over money because your cause is worth it. The types of funders who support major initiatives in underserved communities aren't going to be swayed by DCI, but the corps themselves could shake some corporation funding loose for initiatives that would expand the activity's reach into underserved neighborhoods - IF they had a bigger base of funding (via product/ticket sales) for their core business operation. Providing that core financial support should be DCI's focus.

What product did Dan in the video provide to his backers who gave him $179million dollars for breast cancer research? Pink shirts? He didn't rely on selling them anything; he just wanted them to walk to back up their firm beliefs - something that he claims a greater number of the population is yearning to do. In our niche, we help kids become winners and leaders by providing a way for them to make themselves better people. In this country of 350 million people, how many do you suppose would agree that that is a cause worth supporting? Compare that to the number of those same people who would pay $50 to see a bunch of marching bands - in a dome! - and I think you'll agree that what drum corps does is much bigger, and much more salable, than promoting "better marching band" as you did above.

==

If the reason not to focus on the major metro markets for drum corps - New York, the Bay area, Boston, and Chicago - is that they don't have domed stadiums, that's not much of a justification. Most existing fans have to be convinced to go see shows in domed locations, since the acoustics are uniformly awful, and in the meantime you have tens of thousands of people who are already interested in drum corps in the major metros who are passed over with the major shows. That idea would make sense to absolutely no one outside the activity.

Absolutely no one other than the shrewd businessman who doesn't want to gamble on the weather wiping out his performance revenue. Or a corps director who believes that a static, domed atmosphere assures him of consistent performance weather so his corps performance can be viewed in all of its perfect glory, muddy/wet field be-######. Again, remember, it was the leaders of the activity 7 years ago who pushed for Indy specifically for the performance consistency it provided. It was not a decision that the ED made on his own or with his staff. And yet, you still doggedly promote these same directors' viewpoint that their answer is the only one that will lead to expansion of the activity.

In the beginning, drum corps WAS its mission but over the years the leaders - the corps directors themselves - have focused more and more of their efforts on the performance and winning. That message of "winning" has replaced "making adults" by the direct actions of those who led the activity over the decades. And yet, you want to further focus on "winning" by stratifying the corps and focusing all the attention and assets on "the winners". I think it's intellectually dishonest to say on the one hand "we should stop doing what we've been doing" while at the same time ignoring the fact that the "winning" message you promote is the exact message that got us here.

Lastly (for now) the POINT of the video was to highlight the incorrect thinking that minimizing charitable overhead is a fundamentally correct metric by which people donate to just causes. Yet, a foundational cornerstone of the Seven's pathway forward is eliminating that which they feel is nothing but overhead in the operations of DCI.

You do see the irony here, don't you?

Edited March 23, 2013 by garfield

[cixelsyd]

The five-year plan (if this is what you're referring to) was nibbling around the edges, and focused on bake sale initiatives. Why focus on Indy, San Antonio, and Atlanta (yes, I know they have shows there; it's a rhetorical)? Ever heard of Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles? They're much bigger markets.

The size of the market is not the only consideration. If it were that simple, you could make a killing running shows in those three cities. But none of them have a suitable venue available at a suitable price. Look where the 7 hold their shows, and you will see the same issues of venue suitability, availability and price affecting their show locations.

(To show how goofy the current direction is, ask yourself; is there a major regional in the Chicago area? No.

Should there be, with the championship site in such close proximity?

How many people paid anything for a drum corps related product last year? Maybe 250,000 unique individuals, if that? In a country of 300 million people. Well, given what the actual polling tells about about Americans' feelings about musical skills, it's hard to believe that the activity's penetration into the US market is anywhere near maxed out right now.

Well, that is quite a stretch to relate the findings of that survey to drum corps audience demand. I mean, most of us will agree that brussels sprouts are good for you, but how many of us eat them?

[cixelsyd]

But if you give them an actual product to see and buy, and you can target them with a more effective, more exciting pitch than is currently employed, you have the chance of getting them to SPEND money on tickets, rather than 'give' money as donations. In the end, the color of the money is the same, but it's always easier to get people to give money in exchange for a good or service than it is to get them to simply fork over money because your cause is worth it.

So now we are back to seeking customers instead of donors?

[garfield]

The five-year plan (if this is what you're referring to) was nibbling around the edges, and focused on bake sale initiatives. Why focus on Indy, San Antonio, and Atlanta (yes, I know they have shows there; it's a rhetorical)? Ever heard of Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles? They're much bigger markets.

There are a couple of other points that substantiate the rationale for Indy, SA, and Atlanta, and go further to discount your contention that choosing those particular cities is an example of weak leadership in the E-suite of DCI.

Focusing on those cities is important because of what's NOT there as much as it is what IS there.

Chicago, New York, Boston...what's common to all of those cities? Drum corps and a major DCI regional - Allentown.

It's reasonable to think that those cities were not chosen for major regionals or finals because to do so would jeopardize the shows (major fundraisers, all) sponsored by the Cavaliers, Phantom Regiment, Madison Scouts, Boston Crusaders, and Cadets. In choosing the cities they did the leaders of DCI were well-assured that they'd not be competing with their members' fundraising efforts.

Also, "major" cities like those you suggest likely lack the housing facilities necessary to host a full line-up, as well as lack the kind of "musical sense" as a city to get behind something like drum corp and push schools to accept corps in the summertime - the way Indy has, for example. I can't imagine the housing and transportation nightmare of booking Soldier Field to host finals in today's educational environment.

Texas, Atlanta, and the midwest are bastions of band-kid communities. Can the same be said for Chicago, LA, and NY? If exposing drum corps to band kids as potential participants is a goal, then I'd suggest Texas is better than Chicago.

[garfield]

The size of the market is not the only consideration. If it were that simple, you could make a killing running shows in those three cities. But none of them have a suitable venue available at a suitable price. Look where the 7 hold their shows, and you will see the same issues of venue suitability, availability and price affecting their show locations.

Should there be, with the championship site in such close proximity?

Well, that is quite a stretch to relate the findings of that survey to drum corps audience demand. I mean, most of us will agree that brussels sprouts are good for you, but how many of us eat them?

I LOVE brussel sprouts! They are my new "waffles" ($1 to Soccerguy)

[Slingerland]

So now we are back to seeking customers instead of donors?

See "Money, Color of". If you get it by selling tickets vs getting donations, the money is just as green. Our own experience tells us that it's easier to get money from people by giving them something they actually want rather than standing on a corner and handing out a paper tag in exchange for a dollar bill stuffed into a plastic can. Drum corps did tag days and car washes back in the day. It's a primary reason most of those drum corps died.

Drum corps will never see major donors just for the sake of doing drum corps. Its own alumni don't donate to drum corps - why the ___ would you or anyone expect John Q Public to do so?

IN case you're confusing "sponsors" with "donors", be clear that sponsors are buying their connection with an event, and expect a marketing bounce in return. Drum corps, with some tweaks, could appeal to sponsors more easily than donors, since sponsors are really only interested in the eyeballs, demographics, and impressions, rather than looking for some sort of community good out of whatever they get to sponsor.

Seeking 'donors' to support the drum corps activity directly is a waste of time. Trying to explain to someone who has 4 seconds to give you why this thing that looks like marching band, at the grassroots level, really isn't marching band is a waste of energy. If DCI has to do a better job of promoting the most effective messengers for what the activity looks like at its highest levels in order to increase the overall amount of cash available to the activity's directors, then that's what they should do.

If you make an additional $5 or 10 million for drum corps, as a whole, it's still a win, even if some of the corps directors working at the grass roots and instructional corps level don't see their corps promoted in the same breath as anyone at the top.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Slingerland

[danielray]

Fantastic talk... great point.... but... what was the point really about being gay and triplets. I think that turned me off to the speaker, as he was trying to set up some sort of alternative 'cred'.

More and more, it has been pointed out to me that TED is kind of becoming a cult in a lot of ways. Again, very great points.... but really don't appreciate the personal stuff thrown into the mix. Seems a bit forced.

[garfield]

Fantastic talk... great point.... but... what was the point really about being gay and triplets. I think that turned me off to the speaker, as he was trying to set up some sort of alternative 'cred'.

More and more, it has been pointed out to me that TED is kind of becoming a cult in a lot of ways. Again, very great points.... but really don't appreciate the personal stuff thrown into the mix. Seems a bit forced.

I admit, I felt the same way.