If Music City gave up

[Stu]

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.

Any for-profit or non-profit must have the core of dedicated and competent individuals to run the operation; I do not think that I stated or implied otherwise. But cixeland did state, and I quote, "The individual corps is not really a business - it is essentially a team competing in an amateur sport." And what I maintain is the the entity which is incorporated as a non-profit to support that team certainly is, must be, has to be, a business and ran as a business or that team which relies on support from the incorporated entity will fail.

[garfield]

Any for-profit or non-profit must have the core of dedicated and competent individuals to run the operation; I do not think that I stated or implied otherwise. But cixeland did state, and I quote, "The individual corps is not really a business - it is essentially a team competing in an amateur sport." And what I maintain is the the entity which is incorporated as a non-profit to support that team certainly is, must be, has to be, a business and ran as a business or that team which relies on support from the incorporated entity will fail.

And at it's core, he's correct. It's the business model that allows the creative guys to do their thing, and their thing is definitely NOT to run a business.

I don't think staff would be hard to find on the creative side, and creative itself will never support a corps. But fans don't see spreadsheets, contact lists, and income statements spread out on the field on Saturday night. What fans see is the nature of the activity, not the business-side that supports it. (Literally, Stu, what fans SEE and HEAR on the field.)

If you'd stop arguing you'd see that I agree with you in that the business side of the equation needs attention and work for the org to succeed. In the MC case, initial inflows of money were not what brought them down; it appears it was the business structure built with that initial funding never became self-supporting.

My hunch is that a significant reason for their demise was a lack of a core of volunteer support, and maybe a board that was erroneously charged with being fund-raisers and donors instead of good businessmen. (All speculation on my part, i.e. a hunch.) There seem to be other first-hand accounts here that back up that hunch. At least we know that initial funding was not the problem as it would likely be if Creative was built first. It was what came after that, and we don't know that anything MC could have done better would have even staved off the problem they faced. It could very well be an isolated incident.

I consider Oregon Crusaders (about the same age as MC, with considerable geographic constraints, that made it to WC. Or Academy and PC which seem to be on the "slow and steady" business model that's working.

That's what makes the MC situation so interesting as a study lesson for other wanna-be corps-starters.

[cixelsyd]

Any for-profit or non-profit must have the core of dedicated and competent individuals to run the operation; I do not think that I stated or implied otherwise. But cixeland did state, and I quote, "The individual corps is not really a business - it is essentially a team competing in an amateur sport." And what I maintain is the the entity which is incorporated as a non-profit to support that team certainly is, must be, has to be, a business and ran as a business or that team which relies on support from the incorporated entity will fail.

Since it would better suit your semantics, change my quote to "The individual corps is not first and foremost a business... ". The point is that creation of revenue is not the raison d'etre for a drum corps. Looking for ways to create revenue is certainly one of numerous businesslike practices that we would agree are wise for a drum corps to do. But while a drum corps can be run like a business, business is not the primary reason or cause for which it exists.

[N.E. Brigand]

A drum corps that intends to survive for a while needs to be run like a business, but the money is meant to support the mission.

[Stu]

And at it's core, he's correct. It's the business model that allows the creative guys to do their thing, and their thing is definitely NOT to run a business.

I don't think staff would be hard to find on the creative side, and creative itself will never support a corps. But fans don't see spreadsheets, contact lists, and income statements spread out on the field on Saturday night. What fans see is the nature of the activity, not the business-side that supports it. (Literally, Stu, what fans SEE and HEAR on the field.)

If you'd stop arguing you'd see that I agree with you in that the business side of the equation needs attention and work for the org to succeed. In the MC case, initial inflows of money were not what brought them down; it appears it was the business structure built with that initial funding never became self-supporting.

My hunch is that a significant reason for their demise was a lack of a core of volunteer support, and maybe a board that was erroneously charged with being fund-raisers and donors instead of good businessmen. (All speculation on my part, i.e. a hunch.) There seem to be other first-hand accounts here that back up that hunch. At least we know that initial funding was not the problem as it would likely be if Creative was built first. It was what came after that, and we don't know that anything MC could have done better would have even staved off the problem they faced. It could very well be an isolated incident.

I consider Oregon Crusaders (about the same age as MC, with considerable geographic constraints, that made it to WC. Or Academy and PC which seem to be on the "slow and steady" business model that's working.

That's what makes the MC situation so interesting as a study lesson for other wanna-be corps-starters.

I am not arguing with you and yes we do agree. But what you are saying about what the public sees/hears in drum corps is no different than any other entity whether non-profit or for-profit. The public sees/hears the symphony and tends to ignore the incorporated business which supports the symphony; the public sees/hears Payton Manning and the Denver Broncos take the Baltimore Ravens to the wood shed and tends to ignore the incorporated business which supports the team; the public sees/hears the new Iphone but tends to ignore the incorporated business which supports the technology. However, we are not talking about the public; nor are we talking about the artistic program side of drum corps; the main issue here, especially in the realm of drum corps, are those who get involved in the corporation side of the activity overwhelmingly mimicking the public in that same vain; when placed in charge of the business side they still care only about the artistic educational aspects and tend to view the incorporated business, which supports the corps, as a a rather evil afterthought.

Yes MC is a strange case; Kieth Hall, owner of the Band Hall, successful business entrepreneur, for some reason relied on membership dues and hopeful donation support as projected revenue in hopes of sustaining the day to day operational costs of the corporation, not the corps on-field performance side, but the 'business' side of the corporation; and for some reason he allowed the on-field performance side to overtake and overwhelm the growth of the business side just like the directors of Teal, the reincarnated VK, Revolution, Glassmen, Memphis Sound/Forte, et al. At least he had the honorable and responsible character to make sure the youth and staff were not stranded out on tour, and had the honorable and responsible character to stop the on-field performing corps from going any farther without the proper corporate financing. I highly commend him for that decision.

Many people would like to see the Academy punch into the WC top-12; and so would I. Nevertheless, they represent a prime example of what I consider way more important than the artistic educational aspects or performance placement on the field (as it applies to the corporation which supports the performing corps). The best thing the corporate administration of that corps did in 2007 was to look out for the corporation stability; they had the performing corps take time off mid season touring to keep the corporation in the black. It had somewhat of negative impact on their performance side, they finished 13th one place shy of performing on Saturday night, and they have moved down in placement each year since. HOWEVER, they are still around, and in the financial black, and really have not sacrificed that much in performance quality other than not yet reaching the point of punching into the top-12. Compare this to the Glassmen who focused so much on the performance side, focus so much on the coveted top-12 placement, that they neglected the corporation and ended up over $300,000 in massive debt with, in all intent purposes, a folded corps. Add in Teal, Revo, Memphis Sound/Forte, and all others who just focused on the quality of the performance side and I will take the Academy dropping from 13th to 19th any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Lastly, yes in drum corps the performance side is important; and yes that is the end game; but too many people 'running' corps do so as if they were an unemployed person living life large utilizing high-ceiling credit cards. And when the time comes to pay the piper, they say to the credit card companies, "Oh, don't you know; this is all about the kids, it is all about the performance, this is supposed to be a fun artistic enjoyment and educational endeavor for the kids and not a business in which I have to make sure and keep from overspending my means."

[perc2100]

Whether we agree or disagree, whether we like it or not, Kieth Hall and the Band Hall financed pretty much the entire seeding capital which ultimately makes it his call; maybe he does not desire to engage his corps in SoundSport or SDCA or non-competitive local community events; who knows; but we do have to accept that it is his call to make.

Not only that, but there are a TON of things that go on behind the scenes that the general public, even the marching members or family of marching members, no little/nothing about. It is possible that there are a myriad of reasons why Music City is doing what they are doing, and making a fight/argument about one aspect might be only a small part of the bigger picture.

(though you're right about Keith Hall & the Band Hall if he is indeed the CEO or Executive Director or whatnot: it's his call, and nothing fans say can force him to make another call)

[Stu]

Since it would better suit your semantics, change my quote to "The individual corps is not first and foremost a business... ". The point is that creation of revenue is not the raison d'etre for a drum corps. Looking for ways to create revenue is certainly one of numerous businesslike practices that we would agree are wise for a drum corps to do. But while a drum corps can be run like a business, business is not the primary reason or cause for which it exists.

The performing staff along with the performing members within drum corps should focus on the performance and fun artistic issues; and yes that is the end game. However, for those engaged in the Administration of the 'incorporated entity' (which supports the performing entity) the primary cause should be, has to be, must be strictly business. This is much like a business which supports fun-trip travel packages; the owner or CEO in charge of the company has to look out for 'the company' first and foremost; yes the end game is to create a situation which allows people to engage in the fun aspects of the tour packages; but if the owner or CEO focuses on his/her own enjoyment of the tour-package, or focuses so much on the enjoyment of others to allow them to get on the bus without being paid in full for that travel package, or the owner or CEO is taking the company deep, deep, deep in debt for the sake of enjoying those travel-packages, the owner or CEO is therefore 'not' truly looking out for the best interest of the mission of the company, or even looking out for the best interest of the people engaging in the fun travel packages. Trust me, the owner or CEO of a company rarely has 'fun' engaging in the product of his/her own business; and this circles back to a non-profit is actually an 'incorporated business' that supports the drum corps 'performing entity'.

[MikeD]

I experience this even in just running a show, and it's a very tough problem.

Has anyone here ever counted? How many volunteers does it take to run a corps?

Cadets posted a spreadsheet of the volunteer slots they needed to fill throughout the season when they were looking to fill holes. It is quite an educational experience to look at just how many person-days of volunteer effort are required to get a corps around the tour.

[MikeD]

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

Without looking at the details of such a change...I wonder how viable that is for a corps outside of the northeast, where there are still enough DCA shows to fill out a season. Plus, in areas where school is starting in early to mid August, is DCA a real viable option for HS-aged kids? An Open class corps, or a lower placing WC corps, is made up of more younger members than a top WC corps would be. School committments, and not just MB, might make a DCA effort tough in those geographic areas.

[Pete Freedman]

Consider the following situation: You have access to one million dollars to fund a drum corps. You divide that money over several years, with a larger expenditure the first year to start things up. You know you will need to continuously improve the fundraising/financing effort to keep the ball rolling.

After several years of great shows and hundreds of lives transformed by the drum corps experience, eventually the money runs out. The financing efforts produced significant revenue, but not enough to continue supporting a national tour (in combination with tour fees, etc.).

So in the end you go inactive.

You check in on DCP and find your gravestone, with the epitaph "Incompetent". What's more, some financial mistake you made (and everybody makes them) will be cited as the cause of the "failure" of the corps. Even though, really, it was a huge success.

I believe you should go ahead and do it if you do the right exploratory work (hopefully consisting of a lot more than this thread!). But realistically there doesn't seem to be a lot of love out there for drum corps directors. You will basically be defined by your mistakes.