Dear Mr. Acheson...

[danielray]

.

Edited April 19, 2014 by danielray

[danielray]

I was holding my breath hoping that this didn't come to the fore, but I suppose it was only a matter of time and was not just my perception.

(funny vid, Dan)

I mean... if your audience is primarily composed of teenaged boys, probably a good idea to run it by a few before launching it. My students were giggling about it for about half a rehearsal when they saw it.

[whitedawn]

DCI is just weird.

One of my personal issues with drum corps in general is that there really isn't a spot in the "ecosystem" for folks like me (aged out about 10 years ago, decent disposable income, willing to donate, willing to travel). Everything (especially on the corps level) is geared around keeping the older guys involved. Whether this strategy is right or wrong is not at issue here.

Anyway, I wrote to DCI this winter and said basically, "Hey, if you can get me access to a suite (*which I will pay for, using cash, right now*) for finals, I will fill it with alumni who have cash to burn but don't participate for various reasons. We're talking lawyers, guys from Goldman Sachs and Microsoft, successful entrepreneurs, plus at least one partner from the largest law firm in Indianapolis. Then, you can come panhandle all you want and you will make some money and create brand advocates."

The answer was basically "Wow, that sounds great. Can't really help you, but we hope you bring them anyway."

I'm certainly not Jack Welsh or Steve Jobs or some other business genius, but man... this one left me shaking my head.

[HollywoodNeoCon]

The simple fact is that there are personalities in positions of power within DCI who have stated flat out that they will not be a part of an organization where they, themselves, do not have control.

Well, that's just a given, isn't it? :rolleyes:/>/>/>

Any organization that is willing to commit significant money to the DCI effort is going to want to control how their funds are spent to maximize their own return (financial or otherwise). Giving up control to allow that to happen, even if it means being a benefactor of the effort, is simply not in the DNA of some key leaders. Even if it means languishing in an activity with little foresight, the devil you know is less threatening than the devil you don't know.

And I would submit that anyone entering into an agreement with a potential advertiser that leaves the former with anything less than full creative control is either desperate or woefully ignorant. Besides, that just doesn't happen anymore. Especially now, with the ridiculously abundant amount of channels and venues in which to market your product. There are, simply put, far too many avenues for a network and/or advertiser to be able to make such demands of TV producers and creators. The competition between content providers (the networks) is now every bit as fierce as it has always been between the creatives. Further, the world of television production, as depicted in the classic 1957 film "A Face in the Crowd,", wherein the fictional sponsor Vitajex has as much control over Lonesome Rhodes' variety show as its producers, no longer exists.

Additionally, let me take this opportunity to state categorically that if a person is paying to put their product on the air, then they are clearly not doing it right, and have absolutely no understanding of how TV production works. Drum corps is NOT an idea, or a script, or a concept looking for a production company to step in and bring it to life, and as such, is in precisely the same boat (albeit a much smaller one) as Rocky Wirtz was back in 2007 when he reached out to Comcast SportsNet Chicago to broadcast the Blackhawks. He had a product he wanted on the air. The network felt they could sell enough commercial time to justify putting it on the air, and voila, the Wirtz family began getting even richer.

That's how simple it really is, when you come right down to it. Heck, doesn't DCI already have Tom Blair, Inc. to produce? The Blackhawks didn't. Neither does MLB, the NFL, or the PGA.

So really, that's what it comes down to: Does DCI have enough faith in its product to aggressively market itself to television? Is it even interested in pursuing it, or does it truly believe its better off right where it is? Judging from their Facebook post, I think I already know their answer.

PS: And DCI, don't give me any of this "economic downturn/recession" nonsense, because guess what? TLC is hyping the living daylights out of the all-new season of "Here Comes Honey Boo-Boo." In Smell-O-Vision, I might add.

If you don't think you can compete with that televised atrocity, then perhaps you're in worse shape than I thought.

Edited July 1, 2013 by HollywoodNeoCon

[HollywoodNeoCon]

IBM Interactive Media produced the DCI broadcast from 1995-1998. The quality was less than stellar (Tom Blair didn't produce) and terms of the deal were that IBM participated on the back-end of video sales.

What I was putting together was a completely different sort of deal and Microsoft's experience in entertainment and media is light-years away from IBM's. This would keep the same production team in place, but Microsoft would provide the technical/streaming team and infrastructure. There was absolutely zero interest in revenue participation (not even worth the accounting effort for them), but would even provide the infrastructure for a fan network replacement. They just wanted the case study for other sales efforts they had on their roadmap (Olympics, NFL, NCAA, NASCAR, etc.).

When DCI blew it off... they ended up pouring crazy money into some Lacrosse championships as the test case.

Sure there were certainly other hurdles (most specifically terms of the ESPN deal had not expired, even though they stopped the broadcast, which put up some restrictions... though nothing that couldn't have been resolved or bought out). Investment in the Brightcove solution was also an excuse, but that, again, is not a reason to simply dismiss without even a meeting to explore. The guys were ready to fly out there... and had already gone to finals.

Anyway, was just one example among several. Again, DCI's more or less treading water when more aggressive actions are what is needed.

Daniel, between you, me and Rance, I'd be willing to bet that if DCI gave us the marketing and development reins, in five years, we could have Finals carried live, on a Saturday (or maybe even Sunday?) afternoon, with a Top 12 including a resurrected Anaheim Kingsmen, 27th Lancers, and perhaps five or six other new corps who we on DCP can argue should have made Finals, but didn't.

THAT would be epic. Just imagine the overseas distribution! Oy gevelt!

As the man said, go big, or stay home, because nothing, and I mean nothing in this world markets itself.

[danielray]

.

Edited April 19, 2014 by danielray

[HollywoodNeoCon]

The answer, of course, is not waiting around for DCI to lock in this segment, but to organize something independently... that appeals to this segment.

I'd actually prefer to keep working with DCI, and drag them kicking and screaming into a sustainable business model that allows for continued annual growth.

We may never see 350 active corps again, but I can sure as heck try.

[trh]

IBM Interactive Media produced the DCI broadcast from 1995-1998. The quality was less than stellar (Tom Blair didn't produce) and terms of the deal were that IBM participated on the back-end of video sales.

What I was putting together was a completely different sort of deal and Microsoft's experience in entertainment and media is light-years away from IBM's. This would keep the same production team in place, but Microsoft would provide the technical/streaming team and infrastructure. There was absolutely zero interest in revenue participation (not even worth the accounting effort for them), but would even provide the infrastructure for a fan network replacement. They just wanted the case study for other sales efforts they had on their roadmap (Olympics, NFL, NCAA, NASCAR, etc.).

When DCI blew it off... they ended up pouring crazy money into some Lacrosse championships as the test case.

Sure there were certainly other hurdles (most specifically terms of the ESPN deal had not expired, even though they stopped the broadcast, which put up some restrictions... though nothing that couldn't have been resolved or bought out). Investment in the Brightcove solution was also an excuse, but that, again, is not a reason to simply dismiss without even a meeting to explore. The guys were ready to fly out there... and had already gone to finals.

Anyway, was just one example among several. Again, DCI's more or less treading water when more aggressive actions are what is needed.

Embarrassing.

DCI is just weird.

One of my personal issues with drum corps in general is that there really isn't a spot in the "ecosystem" for folks like me (aged out about 10 years ago, decent disposable income, willing to donate, willing to travel). Everything (especially on the corps level) is geared around keeping the older guys involved. Whether this strategy is right or wrong is not at issue here.

Anyway, I wrote to DCI this winter and said basically, "Hey, if you can get me access to a suite (*which I will pay for, using cash, right now*) for finals, I will fill it with alumni who have cash to burn but don't participate for various reasons. We're talking lawyers, guys from Goldman Sachs and Microsoft, successful entrepreneurs, plus at least one partner from the largest law firm in Indianapolis. Then, you can come panhandle all you want and you will make some money and create brand advocates."

The answer was basically "Wow, that sounds great. Can't really help you, but we hope you bring them anyway."

I'm certainly not Jack Welsh or Steve Jobs or some other business genius, but man... this one left me shaking my head.

Ludicrous. Even more embarrassing.

Old guys trying to cater to old guys, bringing the system down year after year after year. One of y'all influential folks should get in contact with a G7/G8 () corps director in the off-season, and see what they can do? Who sits on the BoD for DCI?

Edited July 1, 2013 by trh

[HollywoodNeoCon]

DCI is just weird.

Anyway, I wrote to DCI this winter and said basically, "Hey, if you can get me access to a suite (*which I will pay for, using cash, right now*) for finals, I will fill it with alumni who have cash to burn but don't participate for various reasons. We're talking lawyers, guys from Goldman Sachs and Microsoft, successful entrepreneurs, plus at least one partner from the largest law firm in Indianapolis. Then, you can come panhandle all you want and you will make some money and create brand advocates."

The answer was basically "Wow, that sounds great. Can't really help you, but we hope you bring them anyway."

I'm certainly not Jack Welsh or Steve Jobs or some other business genius, but man... this one left me shaking my head.

Again, DCI has forgotten more about drum corps than I will ever learn, but they're such lousy salespeople, I doubt they could close a door.

[cowtown]

Back then, the 'Hawks' were being consistently outdrawn by our local American Hockey League team, the Chicago Wolves, had one of the worst attendance records in the NHL, and a season ticket base of about 4500.

They also weren't televised or broadcast anywhere, a decision Bill Wirtz stubbornly clung to, believing that to do so would only further damper his club's dismal ticket sales.......................

Call me, Dan. Let's do lunch.

Using the Blackhawks as an example is extremely flawed

You say they have had sell outs the past 4 seasons. Well, the won 2 cups in the past 4 season, more than anything that would be the key

Also, hockey is consider one of the big four American sports – it’s established, raising a teams profile in an established sport is much different then creating a market for a sports

Wirtz corporation has gone under several drastic changes since the ole man died , to put it on a TV deal ignores how they run their other businesses and the interplay of them

They did fire all their ticketing staff and move them to the United Center to change the culture

Oh, and the Blackhawks are losing money (think interplay of business again)

I’ve worked with Wirtz on some stuff for more than 10 years, even a Blackhawks gig during the cup series – I’m not an expert but your view is a bit shocking and I’m not sure why you would try to make your point and then get it so wrong

Didn’t you make a documentary movie of drum corps? Where is that? Where has it played? With your professed business acumen, I’d be curious of the actual results you achieved

The Chicago Blackhawks are Stanley Cup Champions for the second time in four years.

Man, that’s hard for a St Louis Blues fan to fathom, process, or embrace.

But as impressive as the Blackhawks have been on-the-ice, the franchise is still losing money off-the-ice. According to Crain’s and their interview with Blackhawks owner Rocky Wirtz, the team’s operating losses are between $10-20 million. Of course, after playing 3 Stanley Cup Finals home games at the United Center, my guess is that estimate is closer to a $10 million loss than a $20 million loss.

(Note that Forbes’ 2011-12 estimate of the Blackhawks operating income was a $20.5 million profit. So it’s hard to tell whether we are off because we don’t have the books, whether the team is overstating its financial hardship, or whether the truth lies somewhere in between.)

Welcome to life in the National Hockey League. A league where team’s cannot be assured an operating profit by virtue of billions in annually shared national media revenues. The NHL currently has a record national TV deal, receiving $200 million annually. Split 30 ways, however, that $6.67 million per team is barely enough to cover the salary of an elite player. And compared to the NFL’s $4 billion in annual media revenues? Forgetta-bout-it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2013/06/25/chicago-blackhawks-win-2013-stanley-cup-but-franchise-still-losing-money-by-undervaluing-ticket-prices/

maybe I'll post a picture of me with the Cup !!!