The Entertainment Proposal... The one that didn't pass

[Mello Dude]

Let's put this in a bit of perspective...

With 400,000 in attendance at DCI events last year, 5,000 people represent about 0.01%.

This does not take in to consideration the significant number of additional viewers that connected via cinema events, Fan Network of viewers of YouTube videos.

5,000 is absolutely insignificant in this context and not even worth acknowledging.

Again, that is 5,000 people who simply lifted a finger to press a button on their computer vs. 400,000 who pulled out their credit card, paid real money to buy tickets and merchandise, got in their cars (some for hours) and drove to the event... paid gas, meals, sometimes lodging... to go see a drum corps show. Others that paid to go to theatre events or subscribed to the Fan Netowork.

5,000 in context of 0.01% is textbook definition squeaky wheel/vocal micro-minority. In actual context it is probable a more realistic 0.006% (5,000/800,000).

Charge people even $1 to voice an opinion and I bet that number would be only around 100 that would actually care enough to pull out their card.

To demonstrate how small of a minority and how little those complainers always spouting about 'voting with their wallet' actually matter... I would be brilliant to see DCI call their bluff.

Create a campaign where people can vote to repeal - 1 user gets 1 vote. To vote, it costs a minimum of $1, but users can contribute up to $10. If they can actually raise $100,000... then the rule is repealed.

Would be genius, actually, as it would settle the point once and for all.

You are making a mistake in your logic. You are assuming that everyone only attended 1 show rather than fewer people going to more than 1 show. I agree 5000 seems a small number but you are talking about a sample size out of whatever it actually is.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Mello Dude

[truman]

Let's put this in a bit of perspective...

With 400,000 in attendance at DCI events last year, 5,000 people represent about 0.01%.

This does not take in to consideration the significant number of additional viewers that connected via cinema events, Fan Network of viewers of YouTube videos.

5,000 is absolutely insignificant in this context and not even worth acknowledging.

Again, that is 5,000 people who simply lifted a finger to press a button on their computer vs. 400,000 who pulled out their credit card, paid real money to buy tickets and merchandise, got in their cars (some for hours) and drove to the event... paid gas, meals, sometimes lodging... to go see a drum corps show. Others that paid to go to theatre events or subscribed to the Fan Netowork.

5,000 in context of 0.01% is textbook definition squeaky wheel/vocal micro-minority. In actual context it is probable a more realistic 0.006% (5,000/800,000).

Charge people even $1 to voice an opinion and I bet that number would be only around 100 that would actually care enough to pull out their card.

To demonstrate how small of a minority and how little those complainers always spouting about 'voting with their wallet' actually matter... I would be brilliant to see DCI call their bluff.

Create a campaign where people can vote to repeal - 1 user gets 1 vote. To vote, it costs a minimum of $1, but users can contribute up to $10. If they can actually raise $100,000... then the rule is repealed.

Would be genius, actually, as it would settle the point once and for all.

Apart from the point already made about the fact that many attend multiple shows...

My point in the original statement was that I didn't think ANY petition, whether it was insignificant complainers or not, would have been seen had this proposal passed.

I still can't get why anyone thinks that the activity is so strong that it can withstand losing any of it's customers over something so trivial as adding these instruments. To use your numbers as an example, even if only a measly, insignificant 1% of attendance is lost because of this, at an average of $35 per, that's $140,000 of lost ticket sales alone. Is that worth the change? What if it's it twice that? Or even just half that? Maybe it's not about even an all or nothing thing, but just a "I'm getting frustrated with the direction things are going and I'm going to scale back" loss.

I have also heard that if fans that don't like something leave, that there will probably be just as many new ones to take their place. This thinking is flawed in that it assumes that the replacements would not have come if others didn't leave. Loss is loss. Unless of course one thinks that there are more french tromsousaphone fans that have been boycotting DCI because of instrumentation than those who object to their inclusion.

I have also suggested that DCI certainly knows who the majority of their real paying contributors are. Why not ask them about their feelings before making such a change? Challenging any of your customers to "prove something once and for all" with their wallets is a dangerous strategy.

[danielray]

I still can't get why anyone thinks that the activity is so strong that it can withstand losing any of it's customers over something so trivial as adding these instruments. To use your numbers as an example, even if only a measly, insignificant 1% of attendance is lost because of this, at an average of $35 per, that's $140,000 of lost ticket sales alone. Is that worth the change? What if it's it twice that? Or even just half that? Maybe it's not about even an all or nothing thing, but just a "I'm getting frustrated with the direction things are going and I'm going to scale back" loss.

I have also heard that if fans that don't like something leave, that there will probably be just as many new ones to take their place. This thinking is flawed in that it assumes that the replacements would not have come if others didn't leave. Loss is loss. Unless of course one thinks that there are more french tromsousaphone fans that have been boycotting DCI because of instrumentation than those who object to their inclusion.

I have also suggested that DCI certainly knows who the majority of their real paying contributors are. Why not ask them about their feelings before making such a change? Challenging any of your customers to "prove something once and for all" with their wallets is a dangerous strategy.

Firing some of your customers can be a very good thing for many businesses, if it is a distraction or simply a negative experience.

Yes, a lot of $150k or more in 'pruning' to be able to be more focused is absolutely worth it. That is about 0.015% of DCI's revenue. It costs more than this in terms of distraction.

[Tim K]

I think the idea of the audience having a say in the competition has merit, and it could add interest to DCI shows, though for me, there's excitement enough, but a little more would not hurt, but other than an audience favorite award, I don't think it should be part of the final score and I'll use last night's amazing Olympic Ice Dancing finals as an example.

I loved Davis and White (USA-Gold) and could see objectively why they won, I wanted them to win and was thrilled when they won Gold, but I'm not sure I would have voted them most enjoyable. I may not be alone. As far as applause is concerned, they lagged behind the Russian bonze medalists.

Virtue and Moir (Canada-Silver) were the artists, not the greatest applause.

Ilinkykh and Katsalapov (Russia-Bronze) audience favorites in front of a hometown crowd.

My personal favorite Pechelat and Bourzat. I just enjoyed it. Was it the best? Obviously not but I thought it had heart.

Hands down, last night was Davis and White's night, but the most thunderous applause went to the Bronze medalists.

Now this past year I think if the audience voted, Crown would have been the favorites, I think Cadets would have been the 2011 favorites, and both won the title, but would BD have been the favorites in 2012? From where I sat audience response was somewhat tepid. It would have been Crown's night, perhaps SCV or Phantom.

What we enjoy is based largely on our opinions. I remember being blown away by the Kilts at the 1976 CYO Nationals and not all that impressed with Blue Devils who won the show. I was still very new to drum corps and Kilts looked good, had an enjoyable show, and entertained me. They also fell from finals that year and I believe they placed 27th at prelims. Last summer I was moved by Madison but I was probably not just applauding the show, I was applauding past shows that came to mind because it was an anniversary year. BAC can do just about anything in my mind because I've followed them for years and they always get my love. I'd love to see my love and enthusiasm for corps I love at shows, but not in a final score.

[actucker]

I find this proposal as intriguing as the "other one". While the majority agree to passing new instrumentation that will give designers new freedoms to create wonderful fan friendly new moments, there was much disagreement on this one.

The entertainment proposal called for more focus and reward to design that engages the audience. It felt that there needs to be a shift in design from what the judge thought was effective, to what the fan thought was effective. It certainly implies that the current scoring system does not do that. Basically, it asks for the current 40 points in GE to be split up 20 for what the judges think is effect, and 20 for how the fans react to the effect.

I doubt had this passed, that 5,000 people would have signed a petition in 24 hours asking for it to be repealed.

How can the message be that we overwhelmingly feel we need to add things and make changes to allow for new things that fans will love, but we aren't sure we want their judgement to determine our competitive success?

One might start to wonder if some think they know better than fans about what is enjoyable and what is not.

Do you think the average baseball fan knows more about how to be competitive in the game than the average coach, player or front office manager? What makes you competitive isn't necessarily what makes you entertaining. I love watching a good baseball game, regardless of who's playing. That being said, my team finished in last place. Doesn't mean I didn't enjoy watching the games.

[Jeff Ream]

Knowing how some of the folks at DCI are, I'd not be surprised if they did something so ... yeah.

Mike

well, no i'd imagine the funds would be fought over for the good of some, not all.

[Jeff Ream]

Firing some of your customers can be a very good thing for many businesses, if it is a distraction or simply a negative experience.

Yes, a lot of $150k or more in 'pruning' to be able to be more focused is absolutely worth it. That is about 0.015% of DCI's revenue. It costs more than this in terms of distraction.

ah but if you listen to some of your favorite directors, that income should be going to them and them alone, so really, it does count to them in the end, complaints or not.

Which is why I say if the fans are really that ######, stop going, stop buying. Yes, I know that's not what DCI wants to hear or have said, but if enough people stop paying money, eventually the message may get through. I'm not confident it will, because they'll find a way to spin it to further agendas.

[N.E. Brigand]

Let's put this in a bit of perspective...

With 400,000 in attendance at DCI events last year, 5,000 people represent about 0.01%.

5,000 out of 400,000 is 1.25% not 0.01%.

And electoral polls regularly use a much smaller sample size, on the order of 0.001% or less, and yet as you can see here, even with such numbers (3,000 or fewer likely voters sampled from a voting pool of about 129,000,000), it's not unusual for many of them to indicate the correct result.

Edited to add: the White House will respond to petitions at its website that get 100,000 signatures. That's 0.03% of the U.S. population, which is 42 times smaller than the number of anti-trombone petitioners (I was not one of them, by the way) as a proportion of DCI attendance.

Edited February 18, 2014 by N.E. Brigand

[truman]

Do you think the average baseball fan knows more about how to be competitive in the game than the average coach, player or front office manager? What makes you competitive isn't necessarily what makes you entertaining. I love watching a good baseball game, regardless of who's playing. That being said, my team finished in last place. Doesn't mean I didn't enjoy watching the games.

Agree...the average baseball fan doesn't know better than the staffs and admins. But say baseball awarded extra runs for "style" points, or what was considered GE, then the fan's opinion would have to be considered more relevant. I do agree that I don't need for a corps to win to be entertaining.

[truman]

ah but if you listen to some of your favorite directors, that income should be going to them and them alone, so really, it does count to them in the end, complaints or not.

Which is why I say if the fans are really that ######, stop going, stop buying. Yes, I know that's not what DCI wants to hear or have said, but if enough people stop paying money, eventually the message may get through. I'm not confident it will, because they'll find a way to spin it to further agendas.

Despite my earlier post kind of knocking you for taking this stance, I have come to really agree with your clear vision on this. Especially over the last few days. For the first time ever in my life, I find myself not trying to plan on what shows I will be going to this year. I am not really at the radical protest point yet I guess, but I am definitely disenchanted in some way. We'll see what happens come June. I refuse to believe that "pruning" fans like you and me will ever be good for drum corps.