TV Can’t Save Drum Corps

[Tim K]

I find the Bill Cook references interesting, but I think there is one key element missing. I don't think Bill Cook stumbled upon the broadcasts on PBS. He stumbled across his son watching DCI. This is not a nitpicking detail, it is essential as far as philanthropy is concerned. Yes he loved the product and became one of its most ardent supporters, but if he was just flipping through the channels, he may have thought "this is nice" but it might not have elicited a check. His son's interest made him realize this was worthwhile youth activity. One of the Legacy DVD's includes an interview with Mr. Cook as he shares his story. Philanthropists, especially those who earned their money rather than inherited it, study charities like they study stocks they wish to buy. If an organization is worthwhile it gains attention, the more people it helps makes it even more worthy, and if it makes a personal connection, the deal is done.

Drum corps has some serious disadvantages as far as donors would be concerned. One is the small number of young people involved as compared with its overall budget. If I have $10,000 to donate, it could enable approximately three people to march. If I give the same donation to a group providing music lessons to kids in the inner-city, ten to twenty kids could get instruments, albeit not the best quality but something would be in their hands, and the remainder could help pay a part time instructor for the summer. Bang for the buck is important. Even though we know that many, if not most kids in drum corps struggle financially to participate, it is perceived as a rich kids activity. Perception can make or break the worthiness of a cause.

Though exposure on TV cannot hurt drum corps, it's not the solution to fundraising woes. Getting people up close and personal, seeing the activity live, being a part of what is happening is what will work.

[perc2100]

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

Lol

Also, it would tell me that Stu's friends seem to remember a lot about the show, but unsurprisingly did not enjoy every single aspect/production number. In other words, that would make Blast! about on par with every other musical production ever

[Jeff Ream]

So what? It does not negate the fact that Cook was initially drawn into DCI via the accessibly entertaining Bridgemen; nor does it negate the fact for Blast to make a profit they had to play accessibly entertaining material. You want a small audience of appreciative artistic clientele perform eccentric intellectual material; you want a large audience of ticket purchasing fans play toe tappin' finger snappin' melodies with a little humor thrown in.

Hi,

I'm late to the dance, but....

it's one person. that's it. Obviously DCI on PBS didn't reach anyone else like Bill Cook or we'd have them by now. Let's also realize his son liked drum corps...that's why he watched it. otherwise he wouldn't have.

Let's also realize in the battle for ratings, PBS is not in the top 4, and is often beat by a large portion of cable.

if drum corps is going to go on tv, it will need the product tweaked, possibly a lot, and the biggest part is you need someone willing to pay for it. That there is the deal breaker before you even get into content.

[Jeff Ream]

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

and do ti ###### well. I think it works even better inside than on the field

[Jeff Ream]

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.

As for your interpretation from my remarks above that leads you to believe that I 'don't like the idea of competition ", I have no idea how you could dervive that from my comments above, so I see no reason to address a reply based upon any such " fiction " you might have created in you own mind regarding your thoughts on how I feel about " competition ".

you do realize the judges judge the criteria they are given...y the corps themselves. it's not like these guys and gals go out with their own agenda. The sheets have specific rubrics on them and criteria, set froth by the committee than handles the sheets....which is voted upon by the corps.

[Jeff Ream]

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.

you can't base GE off of crowd reaction. you'll have hometown teams getting larger cheers in one place than another. One can be netertained and not throw babies on the field.

and the sheets have been tweaked. I think, IMO, the biggest issue is how they are applied. to be truly effective, a show should touch on all 3 parts of the triad enough to warrant those high box 5scores, not just dabble in 2 and overwhelm you in one

[KeithHall]

Maybe the better question is....can drum corps be saved at all? If so...how?

[Pete Freedman]

I find the Bill Cook references interesting, but I think there is one key element missing. I don't think Bill Cook stumbled upon the broadcasts on PBS. He stumbled across his son watching DCI. This is not a nitpicking detail, it is essential as far as philanthropy is concerned. Yes he loved the product and became one of its most ardent supporters, but if he was just flipping through the channels, he may have thought "this is nice" but it might not have elicited a check. His son's interest made him realize this was worthwhile youth activity. One of the Legacy DVD's includes an interview with Mr. Cook as he shares his story. Philanthropists, especially those who earned their money rather than inherited it, study charities like they study stocks they wish to buy. If an organization is worthwhile it gains attention, the more people it helps makes it even more worthy, and if it makes a personal connection, the deal is done.

As to the bold part, his son was assigned by his teacher to watch it, and Cook gave in. I think each story is going to be a bit different, and while I agree that a personal connection is likely present in most cases of drum corps philanthropy, that is just as true of educational philanthropy in general. The presence of drum corps on PBS was a key vector in the success of Bill Cook's connection to drum corps. As was the teacher's assignment. It takes a village, as they say.

Drum corps has some serious disadvantages as far as donors would be concerned. One is the small number of young people involved as compared with its overall budget. If I have $10,000 to donate, it could enable approximately three people to march. If I give the same donation to a group providing music lessons to kids in the inner-city, ten to twenty kids could get instruments, albeit not the best quality but something would be in their hands, and the remainder could help pay a part time instructor for the summer.

I disagree. That $10,000 wouldn't pay for 8-10 hours a day training, 7 days a week, all summer long. Nor would it provide several concerts a week to screaming fans. And so it wouldn't provide the professionalism and work ethic aspects that are in fact the most valuable lessons. Yes it would be wonderful, and valuable, but the total value to the 3 drum corp members is likely greater than the actual total value to the 10-20 inner city kids. Take the three best inner city kids and sponsor them into Santa Clara and you'll have a doctor, a lawyer, and an engineer out the other end of the process.

Also, while I agree that the inner-city model would be awesome, I would think that would be a different philanthropist. People give huge amounts of money to universities (and not only alums of that university), but how much to desperate inner-city schools? It's not fair, but it's real. So even if you were right (which you may be) the philanthropist might not be interested.

Bang for the buck is important. Even though we know that many, if not most kids in drum corps struggle financially to participate, it is perceived as a rich kids activity. Perception can make or break the worthiness of a cause.

This is a great point. Any sales pitch process/materials should include or even focus on the need of those less fortunate who are talented enough to be accepted. According to this article:

http://www.dci.org/n...3c-feb1d0f683eb

There will be "up to two" scholarships of $2000 each (for their college tuition interestingly, not their tour fee). That's clearly not enough.

Though exposure on TV cannot hurt drum corps, it's not the solution to fundraising woes. Getting people up close and personal, seeing the activity live, being a part of what is happening is what will work.

Great points Tim!

[Pete Freedman]

Hi,

I'm late to the dance, but....

it's one person. that's it. Obviously DCI on PBS didn't reach anyone else like Bill Cook or we'd have them by now. Let's also realize his son liked drum corps...that's why he watched it. otherwise he wouldn't have.

Not a fair comparison. There were so few billionaires (well, at the time anyway) that only reaching one of them is still huge and certainly doesn't indicate a lack of philanthropic value in drum corps. And as I pointed out earlier, we wouldn't know about the little fish because they are not famous. I believe there is lots of philanthropy at work in each drum corps, and that they wouldn't exist without it.

Let's also realize in the battle for ratings, PBS is not in the top 4, and is often beat by a large portion of cable.

Among performing arts fans the percentage is probably much, much higher. Including rich ones.

if drum corps is going to go on tv, it will need the product tweaked, possibly a lot, and the biggest part is you need someone willing to pay for it. That there is the deal breaker before you even get into content.

Since DCI did it for many years it must have been considered reasonably worth it. Nor is there said to have been a sudden change in 'the deal' that ended it. So it may have been either a gradual change in the economics that led DCI to no longer see it as worth it - from their perspective - or just a change in DCI's reasoning. My question is: Did they measure and consider the total cost/benefit to every corps in that decision (or just their own)? Do they gather data about the philanthropic sources of revenue for each corps and how those sources were acquired? Even that much would be difficult to do accurately. Yet absolutely critical for the activity, IMO.

[Jeff Ream]

Not a fair comparison. There were so few billionaires (well, at the time anyway) that only reaching one of them is still huge and certainly doesn't indicate a lack of philanthropic value in drum corps. And as I pointed out earlier, we wouldn't know about the little fish because they are not famous. I believe there is lots of philanthropy at work in each drum corps, and that they wouldn't exist without it.

Among performing arts fans the percentage is probably much, much higher. Including rich ones.

Since DCI did it for many years it must have been considered reasonably worth it. Nor is there said to have been a sudden change in 'the deal' that ended it. So it may have been either a gradual change in the economics that led DCI to no longer see it as worth it - from their perspective - or just a change in DCI's reasoning. My question is: Did they measure and consider the total cost/benefit to every corps in that decision (or just their own)? Do they gather data about the philanthropic sources of revenue for each corps and how those sources were acquired? Even that much would be difficult to do accurately. Yet absolutely critical for the activity, IMO.

ok...how many millionaires did DCI reachon PBS that came to the table? Look at the real reason PBS dumped drum corps...people didn't follow up on pledge promises. if it was hooking people with money, all the $10, $20 pledges that bailed would be overlooked.

PBS is hugefor patrons of symphonies and things like that....a crowd that often times turns its nose up at marching band. How dare we bastardize their music!!

The bottom line is we are marching band. As the product stands, it's not a good fit for tv, and either we can't attract the kind of sponsors needed to get it on tv, or DCI has done a poor job seeling it to them. I actually think it's some of both