Why won't DCI follow this type of path?

[Stu]

By these numbers, the PGA donates about 12% of its revenue to charities.

DCI donates about 25% of its revenue to the charities called drum & bugle corps.

So, which one is more committed to charitable support?

PGA payouts do go to the PGA players; but the PGA helps the following ‘charities’ with 12% of their revenue: Meals on Wheels, Home of the Brave, St. Jude Children’s Hospital, Child Help against Child Abuse, American Red Cross, Wounded Warriors, Child Crisis Center, ASPCA, A Stepping Stone Foundation, Guardian Angles, Project Learn, Thumbs Up, Be a Leader Foundation, Angel Tree, and hundreds of others.

As far as I know DCI does not donate any of their revenue to any external charities, like the PGA does; DCI uses 25% of their revenue as payouts to the following, um, 'charities': Blue Devils, Cadets, Santa Clara Vanguard, Carolina Crown, The Cavaliers, Phantom Regiment, Bluecoats, Crossmen, Blue Knights, Colts, Boston Crusaders, Madison Scouts, Spirit of Atlanta, and the other DCI member corps.

So, I bounce your own question back at you: Which one is more committed to 'actual' charitable support?

Edited April 11, 2014 by Stu

[Stu]

Ha! I had no idea that was their moniker!

Great! I LOVE what P.C. has been able to do with the simplest marketing positioning in the world.

And, omg, this is a small, very small, nonprofit organization which has mainly adopted the charity donation and business model aspects set up by the PGA. And many on here have stated time and time again it is a foolish thing to compare a small potatoes organization to a major conglomeration. Go figure.

[MikeD]

Helping charities, even through the PGA, is protecting their image. This is a company which had a role in killing many, many, many little baby animals and polluted the ocean with the Valdez incident; and it is in their best interest to seek out duel situations like what the PGA can offer.

ExxonMobil sponsors the PGA because golf has an affluent and politically connected and powerful fan base.

[perc2100]

I don't have the numbers in front of me... but I'm sure tournament purses make up a decent chunk of that cash.

Depends on what each of us consider a "charity" too. Honestly, even though I've been involved with the activity for more than 40 years now and I know it's done a lot of good for a lot of people, young and old... I have never considered drum corps on par with, say, St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital (a benefactor of PGA Tour donations), in terms of "charities." To me, there's no comparison.

I think most people would agree, which is why it's difficult for corps to get large business donations. My mom is an executive at a bank, and because she saw/appreciated what music programs meant to me she pushed hard for her back to donate to music education organizations. The options seemed to be: a) scholastic music groups, or b) independent music groups. Her bank saw far more upside in sponsoring local, scholastic music programs where there was constant interaction rather than independent groups who essentially sent a thank you card and maybe used your name in a program somewhere that didn't generate a ton of public attention for the bank. From what my mom said, it was actually a pretty straight-forward, easy decision for the bank and it makes sense. Her organization contributes to A LOT of charities (both local and international), as well as sponsors local professional teams and big-time local University sporting seasons. While drum corps does great stuff for young men and women, it doesn't do the type of work as others (like the OUTSTANDING St. Jude's as you mention), and isn't as cool in the local papers as donating money to an elementary arts program or something.

[Stu]

ExxonMobil sponsors the PGA because golf has an affluent and politically connected and powerful fan base.

I agree with that.

[Jeff Ream]

That's exactly the wrong way to look at it. Look at it through the eyes of the sponsors - they are looking at who is the audience for the product, not who participates.

And when I look around most drum corps/football/baseball, blah blah blah audiences, I see plenty of Big Macs in the house (especially if you have the misfortune to attend a show at Boylan in Rockford, where the 300 pounders are large and in charge of the cramped bleacher seats).

So look at DCI's official pitch in terms of what they offer potential partners:

Wow. More than 400,000 people. Without any other information in terms of WHO those people are, this is not worth saying. Is it 400,000 people with average household incomes of more than $100k? Great. Say so. If not, than the number represents .001% of the population of the United States - not exactly an advertisement of the activity's wide appeal.

"High Traffic website" - and how many of them are different than the whoppin' 400k who come to see shows?

"Scholastic Music Industry" - so essentially, if you're not selling to high school bands, you're not being recruited as a sponsor?

"Extensive" marketing outreach - must be working like gangbusters, since it's delivered a whole 400,000 people to attend 135 events (that's an average of 2900 per event, for those who are doing the math; smaller than an average high school football crowd in most major market towns).

I'm not sure what's sadder; the fact that DCI feels ok publishing this lame an outreach, or the feeling that this really might be as good as they can do.

Under Armour and sneakers are worn by people of all ages. No brainers.

DCI had some love with McDonalds in the 80's, didn't go real far did it?

[Jeff Ream]

Are you trying to convince me that, just because XOM advertises on the PGA tour, that the general public views XOM as supporting PGA charities?

Really? That's what you're trying to say?

You and drumcat are drinking some pretty powerful tea, and it's making your brains scramble, IMO.

actually....yes, many in the general public do buy it.

Please never overestimate how deep into a company the average Joe looks. In my line of work, it seems like every month I see Citi or BOA doling billions to pay for fines for bad loans, bad investment practices etc.

and I'd say out of every credit report I pull, I see at least if not both being a revolving debt on someone's credit report. at 10-20% interest. Sure, BOA bought Countrywide and all of the nightmares attached to them, but they still get business along their many lines. Jamie Dimond's a guy who in 2008 went running with his hands out to the government for TARP money....yet everytime you turn on financial news, there he is being quoted as if he's a financial savant.

[Jeff Ream]

Exxon Mobile doesn't give two craps about what charities the PGA sponsors.

They care about selling oil products and protecting their image.

Let's keep the real world in focus here, eh?

and by sponsoring the PGA, their name gets attached to the donations, which protects their image.

[MikeD]

PGA payouts do go to the PGA players; but the PGA helps the following ‘charities’ with 12% of their revenue: Meals on Wheels, Home of the Brave, St. Jude Children’s Hospital, Child Help against Child Abuse, American Red Cross, Wounded Warriors, Child Crisis Center, ASPCA, A Stepping Stone Foundation, Guardian Angles, Project Learn, Thumbs Up, Be a Leader Foundation, Angel Tree, and hundreds of others.

As far as I know DCI does not donate any of their revenue to any external charities, like the PGA does; DCI uses 25% of their revenue as payouts to the following, um, 'charities': Blue Devils, Cadets, Santa Clara Vanguard, Carolina Crown, The Cavaliers, Phantom Regiment, Bluecoats, Crossmen, Blue Knights, Colts, Boston Crusaders, Madison Scouts, Spirit of Atlanta, and the other DCI member corps.

So, I bounce your own question back at you: Which one is more committed to 'actual' charitable support?

By your percentage...DCI.

If you look at PGA 990 forms online (I see 2011), at least some of that charity money goes to other local golf associations around the country. Also I see donations to ambulance squads, which would really be donations because they provide support at PGA events. There are all sorts of donations on the list. A good portion goes to a variety of Foundations that would then make their donations. They provide a lot of money, for sure, which is great. It is easy to give 100,000,000+ when you took in 1,000,000,000+, IMO.

BTW, the 990 only shows between 42 and 43 million being paid out as 'grants...to...organizations'...I'm sure the rest is there somewhere, but it is not on the 990 in a way that I can figure it out. I'm no Garfield in the financial area!

[cixelsyd]

I agree with you on this. If there were more corps, there would be more revenue. I just happen to believe that the market is saturated at about 20 full corps.

If you use the tired "400 to 40" argument, you have to include the rise of academic bands, and the thousands of high schools who added or vastly improved a marching ensemble over that time.

For what reason?

Drum corps and marching band are two different activities. Scholastic marching band takes place during the school year, while drum corps takes place during summer break. You might think that band and corps are an either/or proposition, with the thousands of improved scholastic bands draining the member market for drum corps. Obviously, judging from the way corps market to and recruit from band programs, they have a different view.

Corps have grown in size recently, even at the open class level. Maybe the growth in scholastic marching band is generating more interest in marching drum corps, due to band kids wanting to extend their experience year round, or beyond their high school years.

As a thought exercise, consider this: If every current corps had 150 kids, and there were effectively 40 corps... or heck, even 60... how much would that gain the activity?

Are you kidding? You would double the size of the activity. That doubles the number of participants, doubles the number of events, doubles the friends, family, and alumni base that feed our audiences, doubles the number of communities that are directly involved in supporting this activity, doubles our visibility, doubles our marketing clout. An activity double its current size would offer startups and small budget corps far more options for a viable season when there are twice as many corps/events, which alleviates the financial corner we have painted ourselves into.

You're still whittling down to 25 and 12, and being 37th place doesn't allow you to be stable.

If you wish to grow by making more corps, you have to come up with a business model where corps #39 is self-sustaining and isn't hurt by its placement. There are a lot of smart people that have tried to figure that out under the 11 minute summer format... many who know way more than we do, and they haven't done it yet. For this reason, I'm concluding that there aren't going to be more drum corps.

I am not so quick to give up on the drum corps concept. But yes, it would require thinking outside of the 12-25 corps box that has characterized DCI so far. There are an infinite number of possibilities - two examples:

a. DCI membership has been 18-25 corps for several decades now. The number of corps stepping up to do the DCI tour converged on that number back 25 years ago. What if DCI simply raised the number, and granted membership to more corps?

b. If you believe that only X corps can be showcased on the national stage, then what if DCI showcased corps on regional stages? As one example, what if regional championships were the qualifying round for world championships, and only the top Y corps from each region earned competing spots in Indianapolis?

Second thought exercise: What if drum corps were limited to "one bus" / 54 kids, and all shows were on a basketball arena or stage? Maybe that's too radical a departure, but would you get more participation?

I think SoundSport will provide insight on that question.