TV Can’t Save Drum Corps

[MikeD]

I spoke about " the disconnect " between the DCI judging community and the national audiences as to what judges like and what audiences like. I would assume that this is no new revelation to you. It is your intepretation that this is a "very derogatory " comment of the judges. A " disconnect " statement regarding 2 separate parties is no more derogatory toward one party over the other, but you took it that way.

What disconnect? Performance excellence is not automatically tied to audience liking a particular corps for whatever reasons they choose to like a corps. Judges evaluate based on criteria agreed to by the corps; they don't make it up.

[BRASSO]

I did miss seeing you mentioned "Medea". My bad.

The important part of the design to me is that they provided a wide variety of styles and musical selections to appeal to a wide array of people. Again...Blast! is more akin to an entire evening of drum corps in concept, not a single 11 minute show by one corps, so I would hope and expect that they would provide a broad spectrum of entertainment, which is just what they did.

The creators of the successful " Blast " followed up this mass appeal production with a highly esoteric, complex, and out there production called " Shockwave " that for the first time incorporated woodwinds into the Drum Corps style inspired production. I'm sure that there were at least SOME people that liked this show.

But not enough. For all intents and purposes, it was a commercial flop.

Edited April 29, 2013 by BRASSO

[garfield]

Anyhoo...

My points are:

1. Drum corps depend on a critical combination of tour fees, fundraisers, and philanthropy.

2. Tour fees are flat or up if anything (there's apparently no shortage of people flying in to audition)

3. Fundraisers account for a small amount of the total, except for cases like BD Bingo, in which it is decreasing rapidly over time as laws change.

4. Philanthropy makes up the critical difference, and seems to be a key missing link in corps that fail.

5. Therefore the activity today is reasonably financially healthy, except for a critical shortage of philanthropy. *

6. Performing arts summer boot camps (drum corps) should be exciting for philanthropists, if they find out about them.

7. It is likely that philanthropists in the area of performing arts still watch PBS.

8. Even those philanthropists who don't watch PBS probably have family and friends who do. With DVR it is possible to bring it to a philanthropist's attention after the fact. (Today, even if Carl Cook had lost the TV battle he could still have shown Phantom to his dad later.)

9. DCI is unlikely to even know how much money in aggregate all the member corps get from philanthropists who discovered the activity via PBS. Without this data, they can't effectively take it into consideration in their decision making. In making these decisions they may only be considering the financial impact for DCI itself. Which wouldn't have helped the Glassmen.

Discuss. in particular, am I wrong about #9? Does DCI poll all of the corps on how their major donors found out about the activity? If not, then even if I'm wrong about PBS, we've found our problem.

* I know Garfield and others have promoted the idea that much improved fundraising is possible, given a better financial management foundation. I'm not disagreeing with that.

I appreciate your reference to me, however, I promote the idea that a "better financial management foundation" would attract investors not donors. While prudent management is certainly a consideration for many donors, it's absolutely critical to investors doing due diligence.

BD's bingo operation is not philanthropical, it's entertainment that players pay for.

I would not consider donors to be critical to corps success but, rather, a helpful part of getting alums (and others) "vested" in drum corps. But, in the end, it's just more "begging" for support that can't, due to its nature, any longer be the cornerstone of corps' financial success. That bedrock must be replaced with non-corrolated income that isn't dependent on the vagaries of public perception for success.

Your #9 is quite narrowly defined, but I would suggest that if Cook was the only philanthropist to come from all those who saw DCI on PBS, then PBS is not a very good pond in which to fish for big donors.

I would contend that more "donors" are to be found in the corporate world than in the PBS or NPR non-profit world. After all, the corporate world is where a significant (majority) portion of non-profit world fishes for donations. DCI should find investors with profits to shelter, or with an interest in earning a modest initial financial payback via leverage issued by DCI in return for promoting an activity they enjoy, or one they respect for what it does for kids.

[BRASSO]

What disconnect? Performance excellence is not automatically tied to audience liking a particular corps for whatever reasons they choose to like a corps. Judges evaluate based on criteria agreed to by the corps; they don't make it up.

There is no buffer however in the real world of entertainment. DCI has judges that determine worth. In the real world of entertainment, the judges are the audience. They alone determine a shows worth. If many like it, the show moves on. If many dont like it, the show closes down. I am merely pointing out that what is considered excellent in both endeavors has a different set of "judges " for each endeavor, thats all. I do agree with you that in DCI, the show designers themselves have set up the criteria upon which they desire to be judged. But this is not how it works in the real world of entertainment. In the real worl of entertainment, the show designers don't get the luxury of telling the audience that therte will be a buffer created between the audience themselves and the show designers and performers and that a few handful people in the audience will decide the show production's worth. Also, in the real world of entertainment, the paying customers determine worth and everyone that buys a ticket has an equal voice in the judging. I'm not saying that DCI should scap its current method of competition judging, but I do believe that the " General Effect " captions could use perhaps an oil and filter change, transmission tune up, etc at the very least to make the engine drive the activity a little better with the general public at large.

Edited April 29, 2013 by BRASSO

[MikeD]

There is no buffer however in the real world of entertainment. DCI has judges that determine worth. In the real world of entertainment, the judges are the audience. They alone determine a shows worth. If many like it, the show moves on. If many dont like it, the show closes down. I am merely pointing out that what is considered excellent in both endeavors has a different set of "judges " for each endeavor, thats all. I do agree with you that in DCI, the show designers themselves have set up the criteria upon which they desire to be judged. But this is not how it works in the real world of entertainment. In the real worl of entertainment, the show designers don't get the luxury of telling the audience that therte will be a buffer created between the audience themselves and the show designers and performers and that a few handful people in the audience will decide the show production's worth. Also, in the real world of entertainment, the paying customers determine worth and everyone that buys a ticket has an equal voice in the judging. I'm not saying that DCI should scap its current method of competition judging, but I do believe that the " General Effect " captions could use perhaps an oil and filter change, transmission tune up, etc at the very least to make the engine drive the activity a little better with the general public at large.

OK. Not that I necessarily agree, but I understand more what you are talking about.

[Pete Freedman]

I appreciate your reference to me, however, I promote the idea that a "better financial management foundation" would attract investors not donors.

...

I used the term fundraising, which I meant perhaps too broadly.

BD's bingo operation is not philanthropical, it's entertainment that players pay for.

Right, that's what I meant too. By philanthropy I meant large donations, essentially. By fundraising, any other stream besides philanthropy and tour fees, whether donated or paid for a product or service, like bingo. Or as an investment.

I would not consider donors to be critical to corps success but, rather, a helpful part of getting alums (and others) "vested" in drum corps. But, in the end, it's just more "begging" for support that can't, due to its nature, any longer be the cornerstone of corps' financial success. That bedrock must be replaced with non-corrolated income that isn't dependent on the vagaries of public perception for success.

I see no reason philanthropy in drum corps will decline. The old philanthropy (VFWs, etc.) went away already. Drum corps must cultivate the new performing arts based philanthropy, which I do not see going away. And it can coexist with your methods. I admire the dream. I hope it can work. At the moment your plan is still untested; you need to get a corps on board, and I guess DCI too.

Your #9 is quite narrowly defined, but I would suggest that if Cook was the only philanthropist to come from all those who saw DCI on PBS, then PBS is not a very good pond in which to fish for big donors.

That's a big if. I certainly hope that's not the case, but I admit I have no proof. I'm hoping Bill Cook was the tip of the iceberg of lots of smaller, um, ice chunks that would not have been made public on the scale that he was.

I would contend that more "donors" are to be found in the corporate world than in the PBS or NPR non-profit world.

There are not mutually exclusive. Bill Cook was a corporate donor who was reached through the medium of TV. But you mean investors reached through the 'medium' of the investor pitch; I get it and I do approve.

After all, the corporate world is where a significant (majority) portion of non-profit world fishes for donations. DCI should find investors with profits to shelter, or with an interest in earning a modest initial financial payback via leverage issued by DCI in return for promoting an activity they enjoy, or one they respect for what it does for kids.

Have you been talking to DCI about this?

[Stu]

Blast! also used Medea as the culmination...the highest impact point so to speak...of Act 1.

And... most I have spoken to 'outside of the drum corps community' who saw Blast remember enjoying Simple Gifts/Appalachian Spring, Officer Krupke, Land of Make Believe, Malaguena (all tunes which they recognized as commercial tunes), and they remember the Drum Battle leading into Medea; but they really do not remember much about Medea itself. What does that tell ya?

[dcsnare93]

And... most I have spoken to 'outside of the drum corps community' who saw Blast remember enjoying Simple Gifts/Appalachian Spring, Officer Krupke, Land of Make Believe, Malaguena (all tunes which they recognized as commercial tunes), and they remember the Drum Battle leading into Medea; but they really do not remember much about Medea itself. What does that tell ya?

That people you spoke to didn't much care for Medea?

Edited April 30, 2013 by dcsnare93

[dcsnare93]

Double post, err.

Edited April 30, 2013 by dcsnare93

[MikeD]

And... most I have spoken to 'outside of the drum corps community' who saw Blast remember enjoying Simple Gifts/Appalachian Spring, Officer Krupke, Land of Make Believe, Malaguena (all tunes which they recognized as commercial tunes), and they remember the Drum Battle leading into Medea; but they really do not remember much about Medea itself. What does that tell ya?

What does it tell me? That people remember the tunes they have heard over and over, some since childhood. So what? I have not seen anywhere where 'memory' is a caption on a sheet in a drum corps competition.