The best staff money can buy?

[corpsband]

The equipment "arms race" ($1 to Mike Boo) had been voted on by the entire BOD (not just the three that are at the top of the revenue food chain) so, yes, they brought the spending race on themselves. But a different majority has been in power for the past four years and they've not retracted any of those rules that have promoted the spending.

I'm absolutely in favor of restructuring DCI with an outside BOD managing the business of drum corps as an activity. But there's nothing that says this new, so-called "independent" authority would have any interest in managing the judging, tour schedule, etc of the corps. They might, but restructuring doesn't mean the field would be leveled as you envision it.

And, frankly, I'm not sure I understand how it would. Leveling the season's payout (as inequitable as that may be to some) would likely not save a corps that does a poor job of funding itself. After all, surviving on performance fees is not, generally, a key to success for any non-profit and, in most corps, even level payouts from DCI would leave a deficit of 40% or more of the budget necessary to field a corps.

Actually those votes went to all the member corps -- not just the board.

I think the "spending race" is a wee bit of hyperbole. The vast majority of expenses incurred by DCI corps are : food, fuel, insurance. These costs rose independently of any rule change . AFA equipment goes...corps from Surf to BD have sponsorship deals for equipment.

I think everyone (including DCI and the corps) agrees the costs of fielding a corps every year are too high. Reducing expenses sounds great until you get down to nuts and bolts. Then you quickly find most of the obvious expense-reducing measures also happen to reduce revenue. Suddenly increasing revenue sounds much more attractive.

Edited April 4, 2014 by corpsband

[corpsband]

Staff payment is a drop in the bucket of an overall operational budget. Designers can get pricier, but that's where the argument gets hazy. You can't hire a big name to design a championship-caliber show for a 15th-place corps and expect the kids to be successful. The talent isn't there. After your top 4-5-6-ish, there's a solid drop in terms of talent. I've marched and taught at both, and the contrast is unbelievably stark. Where those lesser-placing corps rise up is when they get quality staff consistency over several years. 03 Carolina Crown's brass staff didn't just come in and start winning titles. It took a decade of establishing a system and sticking with its development. How many groups actually do that? With the amount of staff changeover every few years in generally non-title-contending groups, I can't help but wonder about the strength of the correlation here.

I'm hesitant to bring up more sports analogies, but look at NBA coaching tenure numbers versus winning percentage. Not only does the instructional system and player talent take time to develop, the overall culture of the team needs to come together as well. Winning takes time more than money.

Not to mention chemistry. You can bring in all the big-gun names you like but if they don't have great chemistry, they won't be producing great shows. I think where the dollar factor does arise is being able to *retain* a great design and instructional team once you've built it.

Edited April 4, 2014 by corpsband

[garfield]

It dawns on me that there is one circumstance where the revenue "pie" might, arguably, be fixed and divided amongst all corps, and where the amount one corps gets might be to the detriment of another corps: equipment manufacturer sponsorship deals.

I envision a pie amount established at the corporate level and to be used, obviously, in the most effective way to get the manufacturers name and product in front of as many potential users as possible. Once the budget is used up there is no more available for other corps.

I may be completely wrong about how equipment/sponsorship deals are structured these days. But I would think that an organization such as BD or SCV would be able to be in front of more potential equipment users than, say, a smaller corp on a more limited budget. It makes sense to me that equip mfg'ers would spend their sponsorship allowance on those who can reach the most eyeballs.

And this is relevant only if you believe that sponsorship deals are a source of "revenue" (or lack of expense).

[Stu]

It dawns on me that there is one circumstance where the revenue "pie" might, arguably, be fixed and divided amongst all corps, and where the amount one corps gets might be to the detriment of another corps: equipment manufacturer sponsorship deals.

I envision a pie amount established at the corporate level and to be used, obviously, in the most effective way to get the manufacturers name and product in front of as many potential users as possible. Once the budget is used up there is no more available for other corps.

I may be completely wrong about how equipment/sponsorship deals are structured these days. But I would think that an organization such as BD or SCV would be able to be in front of more potential equipment users than, say, a smaller corp on a more limited budget. It makes sense to me that equip mfg'ers would spend their sponsorship allowance on those who can reach the most eyeballs.

And this is relevant only if you believe that sponsorship deals are a source of "revenue" (or lack of expense).

Sounds like something that could work. I see product sponsorship as an equilibrium type situation of hard asset acquisition which eliminates the need to generate revenue while also eliminating the need to spend on outlays. Sort of a win/win.

[SkyRyder_FMM]

Actually those votes went to all the member corps -- not just the board.

I think the "spending race" is a wee bit of hyperbole. The vast majority of expenses incurred by DCI corps are : food, fuel, insurance. These costs rose independently of any rule change . AFA equipment goes...corps from Surf to BD have sponsorship deals for equipment.

I think everyone (including DCI and the corps) agrees the costs of fielding a corps every year are too high. Reducing expenses sounds great until you get down to nuts and bolts. Then you quickly find most of the obvious expense-reducing measures also happen to reduce revenue. Suddenly increasing revenue sounds much more attractive.

The number one cost is far and away the bus lease. Insurance is a drop in the bucket compared to food, fuel, staff payroll and travel costs. But by increasing the equipment used, you not only have to purchase said equipment, you have to transport it. More equipment=more vehicles=more costs for vehicles, fuel, insurance, drivers. Check out the number of corps running with 2 equipment trailers these days.

[drumcorpsfever]

PP = [(SaS x (1+ASY)) + (MaM x (1 + AmYe))] / AGCR

What Garfield said!

Edited April 10, 2014 by drumcorpsfever

[corpsband]

Check out the number of corps running with 2 equipment trailers these days.

Everyone here says that. How many corps ran with two EQ trucks last year? Heard that Cavies did. Were there more?

[CCorps]

This thread proves one thing:

The Colts are doing it right.

From my understanding, they own their busses and use them to generate revenue in the off-season. Furthermore, they capitalize on community-area grants, support, and fundraising to include a diversified array of income (including bingo).

Their staff, however, has been somewhat of a revolving door. However, despite relative ups and downs, the corps has remained financially secure proving the importance of resources over design.

[RContra]

Everyone here says that. How many corps ran with two EQ trucks last year? Heard that Cavies did. Were there more?

The majority of the finalist corps. Second trucks are generally much smaller, and also house things like medical supplies, etc. The excess storage is super convenient.

[corpsband]

The majority of the finalist corps. Second trucks are generally much smaller, and also house things like medical supplies, etc. The excess storage is super convenient.

A box truck is not a second EQ trailer (which is what SkyRyder posted). Neither Crown nor Cadets had a 2nd EQ trailer last season (although Crown did add small trailer to one of their vehicles for uniforms) . Don't think Boston or PR did either. Did the west coast guys roll with 2 EQ trailers? Wish I had some lot pix to look through :-\

Edited April 11, 2014 by corpsband