Leveling the playing field

[JKT90]

1374101339[/url]' post='3288181']

"Rocket Surgery". Pppffftttt. That's funny. Can I use that in my sales pitch?

Did you stop to think that maybe they didn't want fan voting at that price benefit? Maybe if your idea generated a million, or ten million, dollars they'd have given it more thought. Maybe they believe the fan vote will pollute drum corps contest format and it's not worth doing at even much higher prices. That they turned down the idea doesn't make them incompetent.

Your fundraising solution is stop-gap at best. The only, viable, long term solution to drum corps is non-correlated funding, not begging. We should look to BD and SCV for examples because, frankly, they are money machines. But their solution doesn't work for the activity as a whole either because bingo's not available everywhere. Corporate sponsorship and business support is the only viable answer because even where there aren't bingo halls there are still a bunch of TV's, computers, and smartphones. Drum corps' marketing demographic alone is worth a goldmine to a content provider looking for deeper reach.

A third-party, non-director driven, separate corporation has to be formed to market what drum corps is to contacts in media and advertising. That corporation needs funded to get its start. The existing directors must be willing to pony up start-up funds to get it going and I guarantee you that with a viable marketing plan and a viable product to sell, start-up funding will not be hard to obtain. Crowdfunding is too small. Even Angel investing is too small. Mid-level mezzanine finance fits DCI's scale and, at that level, introductions to media channels increase in frequency and depth.

Each corps must be offered "shares" in the new corporation, beyond the initial startup shares issued to DCI as a whole. All corps are allowed to participate in the new revenue stream up to the extent of their financial investment. There is no minimum to participate. If a large corps contributes an additional 30% of funding money, then that corps is entitled to 30% of the net, distributable profit to split. If a corps can only participate in a small way they'll earn a return based on that participation. The more they grow and contribute financially to the funding of the corporation the more they participate in the distributable profits of that corporation. That corporation's singular goal is to pay 100% of it's distributable profits back to its funders, be they corps or outside investors.

No corps is excluded and each corps participates based on their financial contribution to the corporation. Individual corps have NO voting power in the corporation. It is driven by professionals chosen for their business acumen and ability to get funding dollars to their constituent funders.

"Impossible, you say?"

Ha, feel free to use it! Interesting idea. Could be some merit to it.

[cixelsyd]

You wouldn't. Those organizations that are best managed, have the most aggressive leadership, and can recruit the best staff and members will win.

It's been like that pretty much forever. If you want to win, you set "win" as your default mode and then do the things necessary to get there. If the Troopers or Blue Stars or Seattle Cascades decided they wanted to win DCI, or at least, become more competitive, their Boards would vote to bring in leadership who could and would move the corps in that direction, then do the things necessary to underwrite that change in direction.

Oh, great! It is that easy! We now have the answer. So if we could just persuade some of these other 35 corps to "want to win DCI", the balance of power will be restored.

[cixelsyd]

Did you stop to think that maybe they didn't want fan voting at that price benefit? Maybe if your idea generated a million, or ten million, dollars they'd have given it more thought. Maybe they believe the fan vote will pollute drum corps contest format and it's not worth doing at even much higher prices. That they turned down the idea doesn't make them incompetent.

Exactly.

Your fundraising solution is stop-gap at best. The only, viable, long term solution to drum corps is non-correlated funding, not begging.

Usually, I agree with you - and yes, begging is not the answer. But I see no reason to dismiss correlated funding ideas. In fact, I would prefer correlated revenue streams over non-correlated. If the core product of a drum corps program can be sold in different ways other than just DCI contests (clinics for cash, drumlines for major league sports franchises, small ensembles for corporate gigs, or the old staple of parade bookings), why pass up those ideas in favor of running a totally unrelated business effort to fund the drum corps?

We should look to BD and SCV for examples because, frankly, they are money machines. But their solution doesn't work for the activity as a whole either because bingo's not available everywhere.

That is not the only problem with non-correlated funding. As we have seen over the years, corps funded by a bingo-conglomerate-supporting-arts-programs have no better luck than average - not just because of failing bingo, but because the bingo-conglomerate-supporting-arts-programs often decides that competitive drum corps is too difficult (expensive), and that their revenue is better spent on a cheaper program like a winter guard, drumline or parade corps. Anaheim Kingsmen, Freelancers, San Jose Raiders, Pride of Cincinnati and New Day are the most prominent examples of bingo programs that outlived their competing drum corps by decades.

Come to think of it, Star of Indiana was funded by non-correlated income, and they left the competitive drum corps activity too.

Corporate sponsorship and business support is the only viable answer because even where there aren't bingo halls there are still a bunch of TV's, computers, and smartphones. Drum corps' marketing demographic alone is worth a goldmine to a content provider looking for deeper reach.

Wait - you were the one who just said that "begging" was not the way to go.

Again, I must disagree about, well, anything being "the only viable answer" for funding. And corporate sponsorship (at least, in the forms we have received so far) is just another fickle source of non-correlated income, with another list of long-gone corps starting with Star of Indiana, Suncoast Sound and the Knights.

A third-party, non-director driven, separate corporation has to be formed to market what drum corps is to contacts in media and advertising. That corporation needs funded to get its start. The existing directors must be willing to pony up start-up funds to get it going and I guarantee you that with a viable marketing plan and a viable product to sell, start-up funding will not be hard to obtain. Crowdfunding is too small. Even Angel investing is too small. Mid-level mezzanine finance fits DCI's scale and, at that level, introductions to media channels increase in frequency and depth.

Each corps must be offered "shares" in the new corporation, beyond the initial startup shares issued to DCI as a whole. All corps are allowed to participate in the new revenue stream up to the extent of their financial investment. There is no minimum to participate. If a large corps contributes an additional 30% of funding money, then that corps is entitled to 30% of the net, distributable profit to split. If a corps can only participate in a small way they'll earn a return based on that participation. The more they grow and contribute financially to the funding of the corporation the more they participate in the distributable profits of that corporation. That corporation's singular goal is to pay 100% of it's distributable profits back to its funders, be they corps or outside investors.

No corps is excluded and each corps participates based on their financial contribution to the corporation. Individual corps have NO voting power in the corporation. It is driven by professionals chosen for their business acumen and ability to get funding dollars to their constituent funders.

"Impossible, you say?"

I say "undesirable". Talk about the rich getting richer.

You think we have disparity now? To even allow such a venture to take place with totally disparate investments by different corps will cause far greater disparity, with the only lingering question being that of direction. If the venture succeeds, the heavy investors gain a decimal-place advantage over their peers. If it fails, the heavy investors might fail with it.

I give you credit for thinking outside the box, garfield. Maybe you can think outside the box of concerns I have presented here. So far, this corporation you propose to form sounds like another of the schemes periodically presented here to attract corporate sponsors with nothing more than the marketing information they can obtain from the drum corps participant demographic.

I am not convinced that:

a. this marketing information is worth the 8-figure pie-in-the-sky numbers some have suggested.

b. this marketing information cannot be obtained elsewhere in a more economical fashion.

c. the eventual sponsor would continue sponsorship annually after obtaining the desired information.

Is your idea different? Does it involve DCI providing something of uniquely greater and more lasting value? Something more correlated?

[seen-it-all]

You're right, Star was an over night success, I was thinking more along the lines of competing for a medal...but if you think about it, it makes the point I was shooting for. Why were they an over night success? Simple answer..Funding. They had the means available to them to be competitive quickly, and that's my point...$$ would level the playing the field. Read my earlier posts in this topic for reasons why.

Reminds me of Steve Martin's classic routine of "How to be a millionaire and never pay taxes. First? Get a million dollars...."

Oh, if it were that simple.

[drumno5]

The fear is that permanent stratification of placement, with systemic obstacles that stifle competition, will lead to a loss of both members and fan interest (If no one but the current G7 has a shot of medaling in the next decade, then how can other corps hope to attract the best talent? And if they can't attract the best talent, how can they improve?) and so to a reduction in money available to corps, and thus to fewer corps. We looked at some stats back when the latest G7 controversy erupted in January, which appeared to show that DCI had far less competitive "churn" than other competitive activities claiming the moniker of "major league".

Thanks for the dialogue. Sorry, but I'm still not buying it. It ultimately comes down to management and resources, or maybe more properly, management of resources. Madison fell out of the top 12, yet still retained a viable structure and organization, and have found their way back to a fair level of competitive success. Blue Stars, Boston, Spirit, maybe a few others, were certainly at a point where chances of a ring were slim to non-existent. They likewise have found their way back up the competitive ladder. As Crown's stock has risen, so too has their access to a talented creative team and membership base. They are currently a legitimate contender. None of these groups needed DCI to hold a draft and/or assign members/instructors/management advisers to their organizations.

Looking beyond the competitive aspect of the activity (if we subscribe to the notion that it's about more than mere placement, as I would like to believe most of us do), any of a number of middle and lower tier organizations consistently provide a rewarding experience for their members: camaraderie and lasting friendships, work ethic and personal growth, sense of accomplishment and pride in a job well done. Top tier status desirable, but not required.

There's no secret formula, and no lend-lease policy of players, staff or business consultants can or ever will be able to artificially "churn" the competitive pot in any meaningful or lasting way. Dig in, work hard, bring something to the table, administratively and artistically. There's no other way to go about it.

Peace,

Fred O.

[Jeff Ream]

Spirit of Atlanta... when they were sponsored by a bank, and got the services of Jim Ott et al.

Money can't make it happen by itself.

Star started with Delucia, Kershner, et al.

Money + Staff = kids.

Spirit wasn't a finalist their first year.

[JKT90]

1374185344[/url]' post='3288790']

Spirit wasn't a finalist their first year.

You're right, 24th their first year, 8th year two.

[cixelsyd]

Thanks for the dialogue. Sorry, but I'm still not buying it. It ultimately comes down to management and resources, or maybe more properly, management of resources. Madison fell out of the top 12, yet still retained a viable structure and organization, and have found their way back to a fair level of competitive success. Blue Stars, Boston, Spirit, maybe a few others, were certainly at a point where chances of a ring were slim to non-existent. They likewise have found their way back up the competitive ladder. As Crown's stock has risen, so too has their access to a talented creative team and membership base. They are currently a legitimate contender. None of these groups needed DCI to hold a draft and/or assign members/instructors/management advisers to their organizations.

Looking beyond the competitive aspect of the activity (if we subscribe to the notion that it's about more than mere placement, as I would like to believe most of us do), any of a number of middle and lower tier organizations consistently provide a rewarding experience for their members: camaraderie and lasting friendships, work ethic and personal growth, sense of accomplishment and pride in a job well done. Top tier status desirable, but not required.

There's no secret formula, and no lend-lease policy of players, staff or business consultants can or ever will be able to artificially "churn" the competitive pot in any meaningful or lasting way. Dig in, work hard, bring something to the table, administratively and artistically. There's no other way to go about it.

I have no argument with this post. I did underline that one word, though, to illustrate the concern you asked about earlier. I believe the concern is that some of the changes envisioned in recent proposals seek to artificially reduce what little natural "churn" we have by creating new subdivisions of corps where voting power, revenue and even show access are increasingly taken away from some current DCI member corps and given to a specific 7 corps instead. Should those proposals be enacted, advances and comebacks like the examples you cite above would be artificially constrained from occurring in the future.

[TastyWaves]

Every corps from top to bottom built from somewhere. Blue devils, carolina crown, cavaliers, cadets, they didnt wake up one day being a "powerhouse" with no work or effort.

They put in the time, the effort, the energy, and spent decades building what they have. To even hint that taking away from corps who have worked hard and succeeded to just give to other corps who have either not worked hard enough, squandered their resources, or who maybe are on their way to the top but just have not reached it yet is ridiculous.

Edited July 19, 2013 by TastyWaves

[garfield]

Exactly.

Usually, I agree with you - and yes, begging is not the answer. But I see no reason to dismiss correlated funding ideas. In fact, I would prefer correlated revenue streams over non-correlated. If the core product of a drum corps program can be sold in different ways other than just DCI contests (clinics for cash, drumlines for major league sports franchises, small ensembles for corporate gigs, or the old staple of parade bookings), why pass up those ideas in favor of running a totally unrelated business effort to fund the drum corps?

I'm not suggesting that these efforts should be ignored, but they are small potatoes probably best left to individual corps to do. They simply won't fund a $10million, let alone a $20million activity.

That is not the only problem with non-correlated funding. As we have seen over the years, corps funded by a bingo-conglomerate-supporting-arts-programs have no better luck than average - not just because of failing bingo, but because the bingo-conglomerate-supporting-arts-programs often decides that competitive drum corps is too difficult (expensive), and that their revenue is better spent on a cheaper program like a winter guard, drumline or parade corps. Anaheim Kingsmen, Freelancers, San Jose Raiders, Pride of Cincinnati and New Day are the most prominent examples of bingo programs that outlived their competing drum corps by decades.

You're making my point. Although bingo has worked VERY well for the CA corps, it's not a viable option for the whole activity. When drum corps puts money into the pockets of other entities, they will fund it and DCI won't have to.

Come to think of it, Star of Indiana was funded by non-correlated income, and they left the competitive drum corps activity too.

But Star didn't move to Broadway because their non-correlated funding dried up. Quite the contrary. It was that funding that enabled them to move on.

Wait - you were the one who just said that "begging" was not the way to go.

Selling into the demographic that drum corps provides is not begging. Not by a long shot.

Again, I must disagree about, well, anything being "the only viable answer" for funding. And corporate sponsorship (at least, in the forms we have received so far) is just another fickle source of non-correlated income, with another list of long-gone corps starting with Star of Indiana, Suncoast Sound and the Knights.

I say "undesirable". Talk about the rich getting richer.

You think we have disparity now? To even allow such a venture to take place with totally disparate investments by different corps will cause far greater disparity, with the only lingering question being that of direction. If the venture succeeds, the heavy investors gain a decimal-place advantage over their peers. If it fails, the heavy investors might fail with it.

The nature of the activity is disparity. Otherwise, why is it judged? The difference is that none will be excluded. Those who buckle down, save and raise money, will always be able to "buy in" in a heavier way. If the venture succeeds, those who participate will win. If it fails, they'll lose money. But life, and drum corps, has risks and these are no greater than every corps faces in funding a tour every year. All the more reason to hire the leaders well to minimize the downside risk.

I give you credit for thinking outside the box, garfield. Maybe you can think outside the box of concerns I have presented here. So far, this corporation you propose to form sounds like another of the schemes periodically presented here to attract corporate sponsors with nothing more than the marketing information they can obtain from the drum corps participant demographic.

This is not about putting corporate names on corps flags. It's not "sponsorship". It's strictly for profit. The companies sponsoring Punkin' Chunkin' are not pumpkin farmers.

I am not convinced that:

a. this marketing information is worth the 8-figure pie-in-the-sky numbers some have suggested.

b. this marketing information cannot be obtained elsewhere in a more economical fashion.

c. the eventual sponsor would continue sponsorship annually after obtaining the desired information.

Is your idea different? Does it involve DCI providing something of uniquely greater and more lasting value? Something more correlated?

a. Then you're not looking hard enough at the value of the demographic drum corps represents

b. Producing a show is small peanuts compared to the product marketing possibilities.

c. The age category of the performers represents continual turnover and new potential customers. The demo of the fan base (41 yrs old, higher income, patriotic, "sticky",etc) allows for marketing brand dedication year after year. Why would a sponsor pull the plug if the product is saleable year after year (hint to drum corps designers).

Substantially different. Completely 180 degrees out from what's been done. "Uniquely greater and more lasting value"? You tell me, but I'll bet the corps will be driven to keep fattening the calf.

And remember, corporate control is not delegated to corps directors in this model. So no more G7, no more single directors dictating the direction in order to maximize their own gain. Everyone can focus on putting forth the best quality product to sell to the greatest number of people. Oh, and no more wasting DCI's talent on fundraising; they can focus on crafting the best-possible, most profitable tour, as they should.

Edited July 19, 2013 by garfield