If Music City gave up

[Stu]

How many volunteers does it take to run a corps?

Ask the Owl; he figured out how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop.

[Stu]

... I would venture that more drum corps folks would have energies and plans to develop the performance side of the balance with its responsibilities than they would be energized to focus on the corporation side of the balance with its responsibilities...

Thus the folding of most DCI corps over the years.

[2B or not 2B]

only problem is, unlike Cali, there isn't much local for them to do. drawing kids doing a season of maybe 6/7 shows isn't going to work. The better option would have been to look into going DCA

But there seems to be some UN-talked about reason why the Director and or BOD of MC was Not interested in DCA or MCL.

Remember: The DCA, "Music City Legend" was in Nashville when DCI "Music City" was started. I thought it strange to start a DCI Corps with almost the same name same Name. But was assured that everything was amicable at that time. So I dropped the issue. Now on another thread it what the Director was not interested in combining the Two under a " Music City United" or the like.

I would guess ONLY those people in Nashville will / can figure this out : What Now, if anything. We outsiders can only guess.

Funny thing is :

I Liked Both Corps. :smile:/>/>/> What a shame. :sad:/>/>/>

Edited September 5, 2013 by 2B or not 2B

[Stu]

What I'm getting here is that only rich people with lots of time to spend without destroying that which made them successful should start drum corps.

Or only the rich should start a for profit business; or start a baseball team to play in the Little League World Series; or build a youth activities center; or invest in any rather infinite number of worth while causes. NOT!!! If only the rich did these things we would no longer be able to live the the American Dream. Many very successful people started out with nada; and ended up with millions or ended up creating wondrous youth activities. So, do not say only the rich can accomplish greatness; I can point to a vast number of people who will prove you wrong.

[garfield]

Or only the rich should start a for profit business; or start a baseball team to play in the Little League World Series; or build a youth activities center; or invest in any rather infinite number of worth while causes. NOT!!! If only the rich did these things we would no longer be able to live the the American Dream. Many very successful people started out with nada; and ended up with millions or ended up creating wondrous youth activities. So, do not say only the rich can accomplish greatness; I can point to a vast number of people who will prove you wrong.

You don't need to convince me of the capitalist system, Stu. But the question is about drum corps, not any of those other things.

And I didn't say what you said I said. Jeesh.

[Stu]

You don't need to convince me of the capitalist system, Stu. But the question is about drum corps, not any of those other things.

And I didn't say what you said I said. Jeesh.

UPDATE NOTE: Prepositions are vital. You said, "What I'm getting here is..." NOT, " What I'm getting 'at' here is...". The preposition 'at', which my exhausted mind injected, was not placed in the sentence by you and does completely change the context of the sentence. You were amalgamating statements from others and not conveying your own contention. I am sorry; I misread the sentence.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Stu

[cixelsyd]

What fascinates me about Music City's case is not that, despite their deep desire and best efforts, they couldn't make a run to the WC holy grail, but that they looked at the financial landscape and decided it just wasn't worth it. They just didn't want to do it because they couldn't see the real-life payoff at the end of the rainbow.

I concede that MC's leaders are much smarter and more experienced than I (and most others who are interested) at starting and running a corps, so why should I not pop my own balloon of seemingly-hopeless dreams and forget about building a successful corps program?

Because you must decide for yourself whether it is "worth it". Even while one corps in Nashville decided "no", 40 other groups of people all over the country must think it is worthwhile, as they are still running DCI corps.

All this talk of drum corps business tactics tends to cause us to lose sight of a basic characteristic of drum corps. The individual corps is not really a business - it is essentially a team competing in an amateur sport. Like any other amateur team (and honestly, even some pro teams), their venture is not inherently profitable. The only reason the team (corps) survives is because the competition attracts people to donate their time, effort, and money to the quest for competitive achievement. It has been that way since drum corps competition began, and it is not going to change.

It helps to consider certain business ideas and practices in running a corps. But no amount of business sense will transform the individual drum corps into a profit center. Even in the event of an improved business scenario (lower fuel prices, larger crowds, etc.), corps would use all that money, and still solicit more from donors and supporters to get an edge over their rivals. That is the nature of the competitive beast.

One thing your 990 analysis demonstrated was that no matter what kind of "business model" an individual corps has, they all have one thing in common - they all solicit donations. Charitable giving (and often, charitable gaming) are staples of drum corps funding. That is why 501c3 status is a standard part of the drum corps organizational model.

History shows that many corps have gotten caught up in the drive for competitive success for a time, expended massive effort and funds, had great experiences, and at some point failed to keep coming back year after year. Meanwhile, there are others that are still here. That is not surprising. For some, the competitive aspect is the dealmaker, and they stay as long as they have a goal to pursue. Others enjoy the process, and they will return regardless of competitive outcomes or outlooks. The longevity of a corps hinges on how many of their people have an enduring interest in performing the work that a drum corps entails.

[Stu]

Because you must decide for yourself whether it is "worth it". Even while one corps in Nashville decided "no", 40 other groups of people all over the country must think it is worthwhile, as they are still running DCI corps.

All this talk of drum corps business tactics tends to cause us to lose sight of a basic characteristic of drum corps. The individual corps is not really a business - it is essentially a team competing in an amateur sport. Like any other amateur team (and honestly, even some pro teams), their venture is not inherently profitable. The only reason the team (corps) survives is because the competition attracts people to donate their time, effort, and money to the quest for competitive achievement. It has been that way since drum corps competition began, and it is not going to change.

It helps to consider certain business ideas and practices in running a corps. But no amount of business sense will transform the individual drum corps into a profit center. Even in the event of an improved business scenario (lower fuel prices, larger crowds, etc.), corps would use all that money, and still solicit more from donors and supporters to get an edge over their rivals. That is the nature of the competitive beast.

One thing your 990 analysis demonstrated was that no matter what kind of "business model" an individual corps has, they all have one thing in common - they all solicit donations. Charitable giving (and often, charitable gaming) are staples of drum corps funding. That is why 501c3 status is a standard part of the drum corps organizational model.

History shows that many corps have gotten caught up in the drive for competitive success for a time, expended massive effort and funds, had great experiences, and at some point failed to keep coming back year after year. Meanwhile, there are others that are still here. That is not surprising. For some, the competitive aspect is the dealmaker, and they stay as long as they have a goal to pursue. Others enjoy the process, and they will return regardless of competitive outcomes or outlooks. The longevity of a corps hinges on how many of their people have an enduring interest in performing the work that a drum corps entails.

Any entity engaging in the creation of revenue and outlays within a competitive system is a business; for-profits compete for revenue and must constantly increase revenue to grow... non-profits compete for revenue and must constantly increase revenue to grow; for-profits have to concern themselves with staying in the green by not overspending... non-profits have to concern themselves in staying in the green by not overspending; thus all non-profits, all of them, every last one of them, are businesses whether you choose to accept that fact or not. And those who attempt to run a non-profit without a business mindset will, at best, doom that entity into staying paltry small and competitively insignificant, or, at worst, over extend their resources in the name of competition and/or over extend their resources in the name of 'its for the kids' and drive that entity into a deep deep grave.

[garfield]

Because you must decide for yourself whether it is "worth it". Even while one corps in Nashville decided "no", 40 other groups of people all over the country must think it is worthwhile, as they are still running DCI corps.

All this talk of drum corps business tactics tends to cause us to lose sight of a basic characteristic of drum corps. The individual corps is not really a business - it is essentially a team competing in an amateur sport. Like any other amateur team (and honestly, even some pro teams), their venture is not inherently profitable. The only reason the team (corps) survives is because the competition attracts people to donate their time, effort, and money to the quest for competitive achievement. It has been that way since drum corps competition began, and it is not going to change.

It helps to consider certain business ideas and practices in running a corps. But no amount of business sense will transform the individual drum corps into a profit center. Even in the event of an improved business scenario (lower fuel prices, larger crowds, etc.), corps would use all that money, and still solicit more from donors and supporters to get an edge over their rivals. That is the nature of the competitive beast.

One thing your 990 analysis demonstrated was that no matter what kind of "business model" an individual corps has, they all have one thing in common - they all solicit donations. Charitable giving (and often, charitable gaming) are staples of drum corps funding. That is why 501c3 status is a standard part of the drum corps organizational model.

History shows that many corps have gotten caught up in the drive for competitive success for a time, expended massive effort and funds, had great experiences, and at some point failed to keep coming back year after year. Meanwhile, there are others that are still here. That is not surprising. For some, the competitive aspect is the dealmaker, and they stay as long as they have a goal to pursue. Others enjoy the process, and they will return regardless of competitive outcomes or outlooks. The longevity of a corps hinges on how many of their people have an enduring interest in performing the work that a drum corps entails.

Nicely put, although I'm not sure that gaming and charitable giving are in the same box. BD's gaming machine allows them to need less giving and, hence, giving is a much smaller piece of their budget than it is for a corps with no similar operation.

I also think the bolded above can work for those involved for more altruistic reasons, as well. Many people are happy to be involved with programs that help their kids stay out of trouble and grow, whether or not they're competitive. The problem is that the rotation of people - ala HS music boosters - is a killer. One common thread in all corps is a relatively static group of volunteers who head up jobs to be done utilizing whatever help is available that year. The more-sticky nature of these volunteers reflects that they do it not necessarily because they have kids involved, but because there are kids involved.

Finding those people is much more difficult.

[garfield]

Any entity engaging in the creation of revenue and outlays within a competitive system is a business; for-profits compete for revenue and must constantly increase revenue to grow... non-profits compete for revenue and must constantly increase revenue to grow; for-profits have to concern themselves with staying in the green by not overspending... non-profits have to concern themselves in staying in the green by not overspending; thus all non-profits, all of them, every last one of them, are businesses whether you choose to accept that fact or not. And those who attempt to run a non-profit without a business mindset will, at best, doom that entity into staying paltry small and competitively insignificant, or, at worst, over extend their resources in the name of competition and/or over extend their resources in the name of 'its for the kids' and drive that entity into a deep deep grave.

I don't think cixelsyd is suggesting that one can replace the other, but I do agree that the best business plan in the activity is worth little without the core, dedicated group of leaders and volunteers to run the operation.

Personnel is A key, not the only key. As are business sense and money not the only keys either.

Or ego, IMO. But that's me.