stop the corps folding

[Stu]

Spending is only half the equation. Income is the other half. What do you propose to address income? ... sounds like the same difficulty that Congress has in solving a budget deficit .. but I digress...

(staying away from the political but if you on your own see a connection here well so be it). If projected budgets are not met with projected revenue you do not go ahead and deficit spend; to stay in the black you must cut the projected spending, which is the hard thing to do, to match the real revenue stream; then you must plan a rectification via the future budget. The revolving door of the ever increasing budget where spending is always greater than income stream is the real culprit, and here is the example: Let's say you do not take in the revenue to cover the projected budget, you decide that you do not want to cut the services to the kids, so to fix this you attempt to increase the revenue stream (i.e. beg for more donations). And for sake of argument let's say you are successful in increasing the revenue. In an overwhelming cases, once the revenue stream is picking up, you will say to yourself, "Hey, we are getting more money now so let's increase the projected spending for the sake of the kids." Then once again you are in the red due to increased spending; but you decide that cuts to the expanded services will be bad for the youth, so once again you beg for more revenue; and once the revenue stream is picking up you say, "Hey we are getting more money now so let's increase the projected outlays for the sake of the kids."; at some point the thing inevitably implodes in on itself; this mentality is what causes the demise of many corps, and it is greatly harming other entities (fill in the blank) which also use this same mentality.

[drumcorpsfan4567]

Stop using absurd dollar amounts to make a point.

Corps are not folding because they are trying to keep up with other corps.

I disagree. Almost every corps, if not every corps, uses electronics nowadays. Some corps also use TONS of props. There is a feeling, especially among lower placing corps, that you need to spend money on all that stuff to "Keep up with the Jones's". Money then gets spent on these props, box trucks have to be rented for them...it's not the only reason corps are folding, but it is part of a mounting hurdle of additional expenses that corps are now dealing with.

Edited August 16, 2013 by drumcorpsfan4567

[garfield]

The point that others are missing is that it is a start, and any start at saving the activity is better than nothing. Most want to stand on the sidelines and yell at others to do something. Then when others do something, they like to yell at those doing something, that they are doing it wrong.

The spending cap, would slow the top dogs from BUYING a championship, it may encourage smaller corps to STOP trying to keep up with OVERSPENDING just to keep up.

Cadetadevaliers can afford to put 3,000,000 in props on a field. If you want to compete, you better find a way to do it also. Small corps try to fund their way to do it and go belly up doing it. If you CAP all corps, then Cadetadevaliers don't waste 3,000,000 on props on the field.........unless they don't want to spend some of that CAP on their instructors?????

I'm going to presume that, as a new DCP member, you weren't here last fall when I did an exhaustive study of the corps' 990 tax forms. I encourage you to go search for it and familiarize yourself with the balance sheets and income statements of the corps in WC.

Let's look at this from a practical standpoint. There are corps across WC (and many more in OC) which spend $250m to $500m ('m'=thousands) to put a show on the field and tour for the entire season. Then you have several corps which spend $500m to $1mm doing the same thing, then you have a few who spend, annually, in excess of $1mm, to field a show and tour. The corps that spend the most, have already made the investment in the most 'toys'.

What you're proposing is that all corps can spend up to XX each year. In the broad sense, you're suggesting that we'll advance towards parity when all corps spend, say, $750m per year. Does this help the corps that now spends $350m per year? Is it any easier for them to raise money to spend on the corps? How?

What does it do to the corps which spends $1.25mm per year? They're income systems are currently designed to support a $1.3mm corps, what do they do with the extra half-million they raise each year? Accumulate it? Sorry, that's not keeping with the 501c3 rules. Do they give up generating revenue? Undo what they've already built?

I guarantee you that the corps that win the season while spending $1.25mm will win the season when they spend $750m. Don't forget, they've already bought all the toys.

Your exhasperation with the financial imbalance is understood, but your solution is no solution at all.

The only real solution starts with a different touring structure and ends with corps becoming serious about the business of their operations. When the honeymoon is over (ala Music City and other start-ups) the thrill of the kids' smiling faces goes head-to-head with the long term business stamina it takes to run any enduring enterprise, especially in drum corps which are started mostly with volunteers and shoe-string budgets.

BD, Crown, Cadets, Cavies, et all shouldn't be penalized for being successful in winning that battle. Penalizing any group of people for being successful is the quickest way to absolute death of the activity. I disagree with the methods that the G7 use and propose to remedy the problem, but I can't deny the disparity between their level of frustration with the activity and the frustration that a smaller corps feels in trying to raise enough to even field a corps, let alone keep up with the big boys in competition.

DCI policies on tours and payouts can and should be part of that solution, but the only real long-term solution is what it always was: live frugally, do more performances, generate more revenue from non-corellated ventures, build local support roots. If you want to know how hard that is, just look at Music City. They, seemingly, did everything right and were on their way. Then they looked at the landscape and realized it just wasn't worth it (until we find a different reason for their decision).

Music City would not have reached a different decision had DCI instituted a spending cap. Possibly there is a "Spending Cap" scheme that can be made to work, but I've not seen it. If you've got a realistic one in mind, I'd love to see it.

[oldtimefan]

edited.

Edited August 17, 2013 by oldtimefan

[oldtimefan]

I disagree. Almost every corps, if not every corps, uses electronics nowadays. Some corps also use TONS of props. There is a feeling, especially among lower placing corps, that you need to spend money on all that stuff to "Keep up with the Jones's". Money then gets spent on these props, box trucks have to be rented for them...it's not the only reason corps are folding, but it is part of a mounting hurdle of additional expenses that corps are now dealing with.

Thank you, it only makes sense.The thing to remember for all is this: Even if the Cap is say X. So X is the number. Not all corps will be able to raise X dollars, but it will keep spending in check and stop over spending even at the top levels. No one can spend over X. My " GUESS" is that placement would end up being in relation to spending. Top spenders will be in the top echelon.

Edited August 17, 2013 by oldtimefan

[oldtimefan]

I'm going to presume that, as a new DCP member, you weren't here last fall when I did an exhaustive study of the corps' 990 tax forms. I encourage you to go search for it and familiarize yourself with the balance sheets and income statements of the corps in WC.

Let's look at this from a practical standpoint. There are corps across WC (and many more in OC) which spend $250m to $500m ('m'=thousands) to put a show on the field and tour for the entire season. Then you have several corps which spend $500m to $1mm doing the same thing, then you have a few who spend, annually, in excess of $1mm, to field a show and tour. The corps that spend the most, have already made the investment in the most 'toys'.

What you're proposing is that all corps can spend up to XX each year. In the broad sense, you're suggesting that we'll advance towards parity when all corps spend, say, $750m per year. Does this help the corps that now spends $350m per year? Is it any easier for them to raise money to spend on the corps? How?

What does it do to the corps which spends $1.25mm per year? They're income systems are currently designed to support a $1.3mm corps, what do they do with the extra half-million they raise each year? Accumulate it? Sorry, that's not keeping with the 501c3 rules. Do they give up generating revenue? Undo what they've already built?

I guarantee you that the corps that win the season while spending $1.25mm will win the season when they spend $750m. Don't forget, they've already bought all the toys.

Your exhasperation with the financial imbalance is understood, but your solution is no solution at all.

The only real solution starts with a different touring structure and ends with corps becoming serious about the business of their operations. When the honeymoon is over (ala Music City and other start-ups) the thrill of the kids' smiling faces goes head-to-head with the long term business stamina it takes to run any enduring enterprise, especially in drum corps which are started mostly with volunteers and shoe-string budgets.

BD, Crown, Cadets, Cavies, et all shouldn't be penalized for being successful in winning that battle. Penalizing any group of people for being successful is the quickest way to absolute death of the activity. I disagree with the methods that the G7 use and propose to remedy the problem, but I can't deny the disparity between their level of frustration with the activity and the frustration that a smaller corps feels in trying to raise enough to even field a corps, let alone keep up with the big boys in competition.

DCI policies on tours and payouts can and should be part of that solution, but the only real long-term solution is what it always was: live frugally, do more performances, generate more revenue from non-corellated ventures, build local support roots. If you want to know how hard that is, just look at Music City. They, seemingly, did everything right and were on their way. Then they looked at the landscape and realized it just wasn't worth it (until we find a different reason for their decision).

Music City would not have reached a different decision had DCI instituted a spending cap. Possibly there is a "Spending Cap" scheme that can be made to work, but I've not seen it. If you've got a realistic one in mind, I'd love to see it.

You are correct in that I did not see this study, and thank you for doing something so deep and exhausting. Here is a GRAND point to "what do you do with all that excess money?" A: Lower your tour costs to the kids. B: Create more corps under your name, and EXPAND the activity???? Just ideas, or C. Bank it and you have money for the future to continue your activity for years to come ( I don't know the legalities of this being a nonprofit,etc...)

Edited August 16, 2013 by oldtimefan

[chaddyt]

The point that others are missing is that it is a start, and any start at saving the activity is better than nothing. Most want to stand on the sidelines and yell at others to do something. Then when others do something, they like to yell at those doing something, that they are doing it wrong.

The spending cap, would slow the top dogs from BUYING a championship, it may encourage smaller corps to STOP trying to keep up with OVERSPENDING just to keep up.

Cadetadevaliers can afford to put 3,000,000 in props on a field. If you want to compete, you better find a way to do it also. Small corps try to fund their way to do it and go belly up doing it. If you CAP all corps, then Cadetadevaliers don't waste 3,000,000 on props on the field.........unless they don't want to spend some of that CAP on their instructors?????

I must've missed all the props on the field during Crown's championship run this year. And oddly enough, Cavies "all seeing sticks" couldn't break them into the Top 5.

So... not sure where you get this idea of "buying" a championship. Comments like that just cheapen the work the kids put in all summer.

[garfield]

Corps like Pio don't spend money to "keep up with the Jones'", they spend money to do the things that are rewarded by the judges. Without the avante-gard use of 100 poles or other props and accoutrements, they don't get rewarded by the judges as being creative.

Why not introduce a metric into the judging system that rewards excellence based on the dollar amount spent to attain it? Judging is already mathematical (see Jeff Ream's thread), so it wouldn't be hard to do in the math.

If your show met the criteria of attaining a score but your corps did it on 40% of the budget of the leader, then your score gets a 60% boost adjustment. (Or some such math).

And it would work the other way, too. If your corps spent as much as the highest spender, for example, but you came in at 8th place, your score is adjusted downward to reflect your over-spending.

If you reward NOT spending money by adjusting the placement scores then each corps can spend what it can and focus on execution and design instead of fundraising to "keep up with the Jones'".

[oldtimefan]

I must've missed all the props on the field during Crown's championship run this year. And oddly enough, Cavies "all seeing sticks" couldn't break them into the Top 5.

So... not sure where you get this idea of "buying" a championship. Comments like that just cheapen the work the kids put in all summer.

CAN AFFORD TO. Does not say DID. Sorry ot upset some of you, was only trying to instigate a discussion, not start a war. I have already gotten Skeptic to put a negative on every one of my posts. Thought in an era of corps dying off that adults could come up with ideas, that could spark discussion. i used a number instead of an X to represent the number. Sorry to offend you Skeptic. I said that a mythical corps referred to as a combo of the last three corps combined who have won the most and year in and year out use lots of props, could spend tons on said props, and that means I am taking away from the kids??? Sorry to all the people who are so heavily offended by this attempt at discussion.

Could I have worded things differently? Yes. Would it be taken any differently? Probably not. I left this board over a year and a half ago under a different name and came back after seeing some shows this summer. The shows were awesome, but this board? Nothing has changed.

[skeptic]

I would be happy to stop using absurd dollar amounts, if you stop pretending to know for fact how or why corps are dying. You can not tell me for fact that a corps did or did not go belly up by trying to buy the new toys DCI put into effect. Electronics come to mind? Amps, PA, keyboards? These are not cheap, they don't come free, unless you are a top teir corps.....

So, do we have a deal? Or can you show me the exacts on each corps as to why they folded and prove that it had nothing to do with trying to keep up with the top dogs.

You said 3 million in props.... electronics are not props.

Ill take MC for example... I doubt they are focused on your "Cadetadevaleiers". Do you really think they folded because they were trying to copy the top corps? I doubt it.

Or Glassmen... they folded because they let prior debt go unpaid. Thats an administrative problem. Yes rising costs of gas and electronics probably played a part Im sure but it could have been avoided.

Or Teal Sound... they folded because they were not making members live up to their contracts by paying tour fees. Again... an administrative problem.

All corps have electronics these days, not just the top corps and no, not all corps added them just because the top corps got them. Lower corps jumped on that bandwagon day 1 too.

Edited August 16, 2013 by skeptic