2014 Schedule Released

[corpsband]

Perhaps its because when a G7 corps is not in a TOC show, they still get paid TOC money at the non-TOC show they perform at instead?

Interesting theory.

Let's fact check it:

First TOC with a non-G7 Corps : July 18 Houston, TX

Missing corps: The Cadets

Alternate big payout show they're attending: <crickets>

Edited November 30, 2013 by corpsband

[garfield]

Or the other corps will agree that the payouts for everyone in the activity are ridiculously small, given the cost of putting corps out on the road, and they'll agree with the G7 that a better model has to exist.

It's been four years, though, and no one has yet come up with any other solutions that would actually do much to change the basic facts of the business. The activity is expensive to produce, at every level, and the amount of money coming back to the corps from their performances is nowhere near enough to keep them going for much longer. #####ing about the G7 proposal as being a money grab doesn't do anything to address the fundamental truth of their position; the corps need to be paid better for their work, or the activity will continue to shrink.

Or, perhaps, corps should show some spending restraint.

DCI's percentage of revenue from ticket sales is about on par with other arts performing groups.

[Pete Freedman]

Perhaps its because when a G7 corps is not in a TOC show, they still get paid TOC money at the non-TOC show they perform at instead?

Do you know this to be true?

Otherwise, I'd go with the theory that it's a deal to be more inclusive. Which makes BAC's acceptance pretty nervy, considering all the lower corps that still wouldn't be eligible for table scraps at these shows.

Still, I don't share the fatalism as long as there are only a few G7 shows. The non-G7 should still be able to get by, given their other sources of revenue. Maybe.

Hey, weren't there supposed to be MiM shows (non-DCI) in addition to DCI TOC shows?

[garfield]

Turning down a $5,000 performance pay day (more than twice their normal pay from DCI) to prove a point?

Given that it would also open their souvenir wagon up to a larger audience than is seen at most regular TEP events (and souvie sales are, for many corps, more profitable than performance fees), I don't see an upside to the decision, if it really was a decision on their part and not just how the scheduling worked out.

I get your point but, for clarity's sake, a top-6 corps performing late in the season at a non-TOC event makes about $4000, not half of $5000.

Your other points seem accurate.

[garfield]

Perhaps its because when a G7 corps is not in a TOC show, they still get paid TOC money at the non-TOC show they perform at instead?

I've never heard this being true, but what is true is that DCI sets the per-corps fee that the TEP's must pay for each corps. That fee is based on prior year placement and time of the season the event is held (early or late season).

[Slingerland]

Or, perhaps, corps should show some spending restraint.

DCI's percentage of revenue from ticket sales is about on par with other arts performing groups.

As a percentage of gross revenue, ticket sales for DCI are actually significantly higher than most professional symphonies, theaters, or dance companies. Typically, a major theatre or music group will see 50% of their revenues via tix; DCI is nearly 80%. What's missing is the level of corporate event sponsorship and cash support that those same professional companies enjoy. If DCI was able to bring in an additional $2m in revenues via contributions and sponsorships, all that is money that could be returned to the performing organizations, which would make a significant difference in their bottom lines.

You've done the numbers, G. 35 to 45% of the total annual expense for most corps is food, insurance, and transportation. Instructional staff is 20-30% of the cost. Short of keeping the kids in one place most of the summer and telling them to go forage for chow, not sure there's that much fat that can be cut. We expect the leading edge in the art form, the members expect the high intensity travel experience; take either of them away, and we can all go ahead and turn out the lights, because there won't be much left to protect or promote.

[chris ncsu]

And another season will pass without a show near Central NC. Wish they could revive the Durham show they had a couple years ago, or Benson-area shows they had in the 2000s, or Cary back in the day... 3 hours to drive to Charlotte o Salem isn't terrible, but a bit prohibitive.

[garfield]

As a percentage of gross revenue, ticket sales for DCI are actually significantly higher than most professional symphonies, theaters, or dance companies. Typically, a major theatre or music group will see 50% of their revenues via tix; DCI is nearly 80%. What's missing is the level of corporate event sponsorship and cash support that those same professional companies enjoy. If DCI was able to bring in an additional $2m in revenues via contributions and sponsorships, all that is money that could be returned to the performing organizations, which would make a significant difference in their bottom lines.

You've done the numbers, G. 35 to 45% of the total annual expense for most corps is food, insurance, and transportation. Instructional staff is 20-30% of the cost. Short of keeping the kids in one place most of the summer and telling them to go forage for chow, not sure there's that much fat that can be cut. We expect the leading edge in the art form, the members expect the high intensity travel experience; take either of them away, and we can all go ahead and turn out the lights, because there won't be much left to protect or promote.

A clarification is due because there's a difference between DCI's ticket revenue and each corps' ticket revenue.

I can believe that 80% of DCI's revenue comes from ticket sales when you include fees they charge to TEP's to host a show. Their 2012 990 doesn't break out specifically how much came from these or any other program service revenue (except souvies).

The individual corps, however, are quite different. Both Cavies and Phantom show some reference to "tour revenue" and both are under $200m (Phantom shows "appearance fees" of about $171m, or about 15%, of their $1.2mm total revenue. Similar at Cavies.) I haven't checked all the corps but I suspect it's the same among the top placements. Blue Knights' 2011 990 shows about 22% of total revenue came from performance fees.

The lower down in the placements you go, generally, the greater the percentage of their income comes from member dues.

Of course, this is why corps that support themselves with non-correlated businesses (like bingo or instrument sales) are in a more solid position because they don't have to rely on either performance fees or begging to support themselves. At the same time, the corps with smaller revenues find a way to put a show on the field for a fraction of what the top corps do.

Saying that drum corps are "deserving" of higher performance revenue is akin to me saying I'm "deserving" of higher revenue in my personal business. They (and I) get what the market will bear based on what paying customers are willing to pay.

DCI has been steadily increasing the TEP fees in the last several years (which increases ticket prices), but I doubt they'll be able to increase ticket prices to the point where we'd all be satisfied that the corps are getting what they're due.

In my business, as in all businesses - drum corps included, the best way to increase revenue is to offer a product, service, or entertainment that more people want to buy at a higher price. I think this is a better solution than the G7 idea presented 4 years ago. But can we say that drum corps has enthusiastically taken up that possible solution? I suggest that answer lies in the result of multiplying ticket sales by ticket prices.

Edited December 1, 2013 by garfield

[Pete Freedman]

...

Saying that drum corps are "deserving" of higher performance revenue is akin to me saying I'm "deserving" of higher revenue in my personal business. They (and I) get what the market will bear based on what paying customers are willing to pay.

...

Well, the ticket revenues are based on market forces, but the split between the corps is based on a negotiation with DCI, not market forces. So arguing a renegotiation of that split is perfectly reasonable (both by the G7 and by the Cascades, etc.)

[garfield]

Well, the ticket revenues are based on market forces, but the split between the corps is based on a negotiation with DCI, not market forces. So arguing a renegotiation of that split is perfectly reasonable (both by the G7 and by the Cascades, etc.)

I disagree, and I'm sure the G7 would disagree with you. It is exactly market forces that prompts them to want a bigger share of the pie. They feel there is bigger demand for their entertainment, therefore they should get a higher price. Demand and Supply. Simple.

In their minds.

But this is a different argument, isn't it? The context was incoming performance revenue, not the split.

Edited December 1, 2013 by garfield