Re-Invention of DCI

[MikeD]

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.

Personally, I think one reason for the stated locations...Texas, Georgia and Indiana, is the relative closeness of a lot of high-end competitive scholastic music programs.

[Fred Windish]

And, as for Allentown, MikeD, Allentown was not pre-engineered in any way. It was an emergency "shot in the dark" by Pesceone. The decision had nothing to do with the Cadets.

[cixelsyd]

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.

Some people do want their car washed, so they are getting something for their money. Tag day is the better example of a pure donation.

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.

And there is cause for concern, then. If they expect a marketing bounce, and it cannot be demonstrated that there was one (or that it was definitely from their DCI sponsorship, and not one of their other hundred marketing campaigns), then there is no reason to expect that sponsorship to last more than a season or two (like Circle K and Knights Inn).

Coming from a background where people are required to demonstrate payoff, I also wonder whether any of these sponsorships are demonstrably profitable to the sponsor. Most of the justifications I have heard for them include other factors such as the name association with "community good", to which you allude. As long as that is a necessary factor in the decision making, I think it is fair to conflate "sponsors" with "donors".

[jonnyboy]

Someone actually sent me a link to the same TED Conversation recently. This guy makes some valid points, and I think his ideas can be applied to individual corps fundraisers. Most importantly you have to spend money to make money. So many corps put in hundreds of hours fundraising only to turn a small profit, when a little more smart spending you can turn those same man hours into bigger profits.

Where I think this conversation misses the mark is when you try to apply the ideas to something like DCI. Specifically things like corps directors being compensated in the hundreds of thousands and corps spending $250K on fundraising so they can have a budget of $5 million. Those kinds of numbers turn drumcorps into something other than what it is. Raising $100 million for breast cancer research or feeding the hungry is great, but not so a bunch of middle class white kids can march around all summer.

On a personal note, I actually think the big corps need to dial it back a bit, they are pushing smaller corps off the field. The business of DCI shouldn't just be a glossy finals video, it should be about getting as many kids on the field as possible in a given summer. I no longer care if finals is in NYC or a dome or a cornfield in Iowa. I would rather see ten corps with mismatched drums and horns than one G7 with a brand new set of Yamaha horns every summer. I would rather see 15 eighty member corps tour July and August than G7 two hundred member corps with May move in dates and $3k+ tour fees. The answer isn't making more money so we can spend more, it is spending less money so we can spend what we make.

[Jeff Ream]

Any real-deal management team that could potentially be brought in is going to demand sweeping power...power I'm not sure the corps directors would be willing to cede.

ding ding. When you already have a power play at work, giving up power to anyone will be a huge issue

[Jeff Ream]

And, as for Allentown, MikeD, Allentown was not pre-engineered in any way. It was an emergency "shot in the dark" by Pesceone. The decision had nothing to do with the Cadets.

true. I mean they were actually still in Garfield then

[cixelsyd]

My general reaction to the video: meh.

I am not opposed to the concept of spending more to make more, multiplying, and so forth. And the point about "overhead" was on target - people (including those on this forum) really need to look more closely at what that "overhead" is before passing judgment on the performance of a non-profit.

That said, though, some other portions of the presentation did not close the deal with me. Okay, there is no reason why non-profit CEOs should take a vow of poverty, agreed. But the reality is that if you are running a charity, you must cope with public perception. The public thinks that CEOs of the top for-profit companies are overpaid. Therefore, they are not going to accept the concept of a non-profit trying to compete with that by offering top dollar for their CEO; donations will suffer. Considering the source (the presenter is a non-profit CEO), I am not surprised that he has not acknowledged this reality.

Also, there was not enough talk about risk. Aggressive growth strategies come with greater risk. We should remember that each donor is performing their own personal risk-reward calculation in deciding where and how much to donate. Donors might think twice about a charity that pursues aggressive growth strategies. A culture of aggressive charities might scare off donors in bulk.

[Tim K]

Mr. Pallotta has some interesting and perhaps provocative ideas, his overall premise being that we have to be thinking bigger when it comes to raising funds for non-profits. In theory his point of view is correct, though he had his share of critics, especially when it comes to some of some of his practices at TeamWorks. However, there is one flaw I found with the video and Pallotta's overall work, namely a connection seems to be missing with people who will benefit from funds raised. Yes, the amount of money raised is important, but as many in development and advancement will point out, it's not everything.

I know people who have participated in both the AIDS Ride and the three day walk. The woman I know who did the AIDS Ride in memory of her brother was involved in many AIDS charities at the time of the ride. Her criticism was not in management issues, which Mr. Pallotta defended in his video. She felt the ride was more like a vacation for hard core cyclists. Some riders raised significant finds but the cause was not the issue, and there was not enough of a connection with people diagnosed with AIDS except those who were responding well to drug treatments which at the time was a significant number but not the whole picture. For drum corps, the relationship aspect is essential. Perhaps the best example would be Bill Cook. His son's connection piqued his curiosity and a new drum corps was founded. The Crossmen's success is due largely to a non-drum corps business executive who was bitten by the drum corps bug and has yet to recover and if the corps is going to continue to improve as they have under his leadership, may he never recover! The relationship is key. I now this personally in my own giving. While I don't contribute huge amounts to drum corps and no corps breathes a sigh of relief when my check arrives, knowing my help will make the summer a reality, I do contribute. Now I've attended shows since the sixth grade, but I've only been contributing in recent years, but something significant changed my mind a few years back. At a Boston Crusaders show, three young men stood at the gate as people exited, shook hands and thanked them for attending the show. I'm not sure whether it was a deliberate move on the part of the corps or self-initiated by the kids themselves, but it worked.

Perhaps a better example for a new model that could be applied to drum corps would come from of Ron Clark of Ron Clark Academy. A school would have more similarities to drum corps management and fundraising than Mr. Pallotta's causes. To give him credit, Pallotta is trying to raise funds for very serious issues: AIDS, breast cancer, suicide prevention, and he is committed. Clark is a publicity go-getter and his face is on every book he sells, he is enthusiastic, and he has substance. His schools have high standards and he freely shares his methods with others. He seems to raise funds less on the hard sell of donations but uses publicity in such a way people want to give almost without asking and corporations want to be a part of what he's doing. He has big dreams, achieves them first by making sure his school is meeting standards, gets people involved, and raises all kinds of funds. This may be what DCI needs.