Why won't DCI follow this type of path?

[garfield]

I agree with your general premise of not jumping the shark by making irrational cuts. However, would you please show us where any of the decisions made by NASCAR listed in the first post in this thread, or any of their decisions as of late not listed for that matter, to cut expenses were ‘first response boneheaded decisions’. Would you also please show us where I or anyone here who has made suggestions on how DCI could cut some outlays is attempting to ask DCI to squeeze an extra four uses out of every roll of paper towels.

By it's very nature, Stu, cost-cutting during a downturn is doing exactly that - squeezing extra sheets from the roll of towels. The goal is to increase the revenue so you can buy another roll.

Slingerland is right, IMO. Cost-cutting is working at the margins and threatens to distract from the primary goal of increasing revenue.

What DCI is doing to increase online viewership has been hugely successful (last year's live finals broadcast is the example) and is a perfect example of where energy should be directed. They could have instead cut broadcast costs, or cheapened the production, but instead they focused on growth of viewership, and it worked exceedingly well.

Centralized purchasing is good for efficiency and lowering costs, but nothing substitutes for getting more eyeballs and "selling more stuff".

[garfield]

Fred Morris (upon the eventual relenquising of his duties to the Troopers, whenever -- and at his choosing, of course --that happens to be)...

For Head of DCi. Consider this a formal motion.

Sorry I missed this initially.

I like Fred's reputation, and I love Troopers. But I wonder: What business qualities does he have that makes him an ideal candidate to lead DCI?

[Fred Windish]

That's not to say that work isn't done on the margins to increase productivity and keep costs contained, but none of those things are as important as growing top-line revenue. Those other things are the things to do when business is good, not when it's bad. When business turns down there's only one way to overcome the challenge: "Sell more stuff".

Your total message is clear, but I want to focus on the last paragraph above.

There is far too big a segment of this endeavor who finds considering what DCI does as business to be something distasteful, too guttural. Some weekend 'social scientists' involved in DCI much prefer to proclaim " it really doesn't matter what the audience thinks." " We are a small educational endeavor too pure to worry about sales, per se." Well, OK, I suppose. It's just that paying the bills requires dollars, not just faith and good feelings. Tickets are sold for a reason. The more sold, the better. Same for all products.

In brief summary of the current condition, I have to say the 'creative' side of what we do overbalances the 'business' side, and that's a ratio that needs to change.

[corpsband]

WHY are we even talking about NASCAR as compared to tiny little drum corps, given the below numbers...

NASCAR Racing Statistics Data

Annual NASCAR revenue $3.1 Billion

Average NASCAR ticket price $92.16

Number of NASCAR fans 75 Million

Average NASCAR race attendance 99,853

Total annual NACAR attendance 3.6 Million

Number of households that watch the Daytona 500 12.5 Million

Annual worth of NASCAR television contract $560 Million

NASCAR Team Expense Statistics Amount

Average NASCAR Drivers’ Salary including endorsements $7.5 Million

Average NASCAR team member salary $35,000

Average spent annually by a NASCAR team on travel $1 Million

Average spent per race by a NASCAR team on tires $20,000 A

verage spent on in-house engine program by a NASCAR team $3.5 million

Average spent on a NASCAR racing car $1.5 Million

YAFSA!

[Stu]

Absolutely.

My business is replete with business-plan gurus. The kind of guys who proclaim to hold the keys to success by laying down complicated and thought-provoking plans on paper to prompt efficiency and room for growth. I've gone through the process many times over 30 years, "reinventing" the way I do business then methodically checking my actions against the plan. Many of these plans are useful to certain types of individual personalities, and some are actually useful. Most, however, simply reinforce the notion that doing something different is better than doing the same and expecting different. It was only after 15 years of massaging my practices did I find the business model that worked best for me, the one that allowed me to create enough time to focus on growth every day.

A good friend who is also in the business always eschewed a formal business plan, regardless of the gurus constantly telling him he needed one. His answer was so simply elegant, and so profound in its wisdom, that it summed up the conclusions it took me years to recognize. His business plan?

"Call more people. Sell more stuff."

Sure, his desk is always a mess and, yes, he could use lots of efficiency-management to streamline his day. But, in the end, he had a clear vision of what it took to assure long-term success: Growth.

That's not to say that work isn't done on the margins to increase productivity and keep costs contained, but none of those things are as important as growing top-line revenue. Those other things are the things to do when business is good, not when it's bad. When business turns down there's only one way to overcome the challenge: "Sell more stuff".

Please remember that I used the words ‘any organization’ when asking if they should only focus on increasing revenue and not on cutting expenditures and your direct response was ‘Absolutely’ ; and all of your other responses in other postings have been exactly in line with that one-word proclamation. So with that, you must absolutely hold to the belief that an organization which most every business person has said needs to be ran like a business, called Federal Congress, should thus only focus on increasing revenue (increasing our taxes) and not on cutting any expenditures (cutting any programs or spending on those programs). Before you respond, remember I said ‘any organization’ and you said ‘Absolutely’.

[Fred Windish]

Gotta admit, Stu .. . I also thought of Washington, D.C. when cutting expenses, as an option, was mentioned. I also thought of the many companies that use bankruptcy to reorganize and survive, also having reduced size and expenses as part of their plan. We need BOTH growth and cutting expenses. I do believe Garfield alluded to that, however. Unbridled spending leads to failure down the road in nearly every instance. I'm afraid we'll see that soon enough in D.C.

[Stu]

By it's very nature, Stu, cost-cutting during a downturn is doing exactly that - squeezing extra sheets from the roll of towels. The goal is to increase the revenue so you can buy another roll.

I am not being facetious here but serious. If I used this ‘it is only about revenue and never about cutting’ and applied that to my home here is what would happen. “Family, we need to talk. My business income has taken a dive as of late; and while we are still able to pay for necessities like our house, food, insurance, etc… to pay for non-essentials we will have to start using credit cards which will cause us to start going down the path of going deep into debt. But be not afraid for there is good news and great joy! While I am seeking better ways to increase our income we do not have to cut our full-package cable TV with DVR, we do not have to cut our full-package mobile services with unlimited web browsing, we do not have to cut our weekly outing to nice restaurants, and this will make you happy, we can still go to Disney World! Why? Because my business adviser said that we should never ever cut anything in a down turn but only focus on generating more income.” Do ya think that philosophy will fly with my wife Garfield?

[Slingerland]

I am not being facetious here but serious. If I used this ‘it is only about revenue and never about cutting’ and applied that to my home here is what would happen. “Family, we need to talk. My business income has taken a dive as of late; and while we are still able to pay for necessities like our house, food, insurance, etc… to pay for non-essentials we will have to start using credit cards which will cause us to start going down the path of going deep into debt. But be not afraid for there is good news and great joy! While I am seeking better ways to increase our income we do not have to cut our full-package cable TV with DVR, we do not have to cut our full-package mobile services with unlimited web browsing, we do not have to cut our weekly outing to nice restaurants, and this will make you happy, we can still go to Disney World! Why? Because my business adviser said that we should never ever cut anything in a down turn but only focus on generating more income.” Do ya think that philosophy will fly with my wife Garfield?

If your sales slump, absent any external rationale for the slump (like a major recession), then the primary focus should be fixing the problem, not cutting costs right off the bat. Assign a mid-level staffer to look at cost savings, but the bulk of the CEO's energy should be on re-invigorating sales, since THAT's really the cause of the problem in the first place.

In other words, "call more people, sell more stuff."

If the REASON why you can't afford things at your house is because your eyes were bigger than your checkbook, than sure; cut away. But no one (who really knows the numbers) believes that DCI or the corps are spending extravagantly now. The problem is lagging revenues; not overextended budgets.

DCI made some progress last year, but has a long way to go when it comes to putting more butts in seats and eyeballs on the screen. Even with the increased number of participants via the streaming webcast of Finals, both the real attendance at LOS and the number of people watching via live media are significantly down from where they were in the late 70s. If DCI had 25,000 at Finals and another 2 to 3 million watching live on Saturday night, they'd be in a much better position to pitch themselves to corporate sponsors than they are with 17,000 in the stands and another few thousand watching at home.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Slingerland

[garfield]

I am not being facetious here but serious. If I used this ‘it is only about revenue and never about cutting’ and applied that to my home here is what would happen. “Family, we need to talk. My business income has taken a dive as of late; and while we are still able to pay for necessities like our house, food, insurance, etc… to pay for non-essentials we will have to start using credit cards which will cause us to start going down the path of going deep into debt. But be not afraid for there is good news and great joy! While I am seeking better ways to increase our income we do not have to cut our full-package cable TV with DVR, we do not have to cut our full-package mobile services with unlimited web browsing, we do not have to cut our weekly outing to nice restaurants, and this will make you happy, we can still go to Disney World! Why? Because my business adviser said that we should never ever cut anything in a down turn but only focus on generating more income.” Do ya think that philosophy will fly with my wife Garfield?

"Dear Family, my business adviser recommends that we now begin re-using our toilet paper. This will save us approximately $4 per month while I look for a big-boy job."

Did you listen to your business adviser and cut the frivolity from your expenses when times were good and you had REVENUE? No, you turned a blind eye when "the family" asked for cable, mobile, etc. Now, your lack of leadership makes you look like a poor provider.

Did you listen to your business adviser when he suggested you pare off some of earnings during the good times and build a cushion for the inevitable downturn? No, you didn't, and now you've forced pain on your family (pain! Ha!) while you try to go generate more REVENUE.

Why did your business REVENUE take a dive in the first place? Will you blame others or circumstances beyond your control? Did you apply the basic principals of diversifying your income sources and save a cushion in your business to survive a downturn? Apparently not for, again, you ignored your business adviser and allowed frivolity to enter your business as well.

Interesting that you take responsibility in your household for generating REVENUE but then, when you mistakes catch up to you, you force your family to take the pain while you hunt for more REVENUE.

Stu, you're missing the point (or, more likely, being your typical word-parsing contentious self) and you even suggested it in your "family speech". The key to stop the family's pain is MORE REVENUE. Instead of cutting expenses and building a cushion when times were good, you waited until the crap hit the fan to say "No" to cable, "No" to mobile, "No" to Disney and now you're forcing the family to give up the lifestyle you allowed them to live because you couldn't say "No" when times were good.

Your family cuts costs while you fail at generating more revenue - are you better off? Your family cuts more while you count pennies instead of walking the streets filling out resumes. Is your problem solved because you don't now have a cable bill? Your family has taken your advice and is now re-using toilet paper and you've even convinced them to share single pieces of bread for meals. Is your problem solved? Your hours of budget analysis has found every frivolous penny to cut, while the kids still scream from hunger. While you've saved them from immediate death, have you solved your problem?

Once you've cut all your expenses to the bone and you and your family are surviving, precariously perched on the edge of the abyss without falling into it, have you solved your problem?

No, you still need to produce REVENUE. So why not focus on that solution first instead of counting pennies and slices of bread?

I'm a firm believer in the old axiom that wealth comes not from how much you put in the top of the sieve, but from plugging the frivolous holes in the bottom of the sieve (my kids carry flip phones, for example, with no data access at all (the phones are so unusual at school that the kids think they are cool)). But the time to act on that advice is when there is REVENUE still coming in, not when the REVENUE stops because, then, YOU aren't in control anymore, the cable is going to be shut off and the credit cards will no longer work whether or not you choose. Cutting expenses in your example is not optional; it will be forced on you in short time by those who now control your future.

And, still, you need more REVENUE (and your wife needs a good divorce attorney).

Lastly, your example is one where the REVENUE ceased entirely. DCI is not in that position yet so I question whether, again, your comparison is even relevant.

[garfield]

Please remember that I used the words ‘any organization’ when asking if they should only focus on increasing revenue and not on cutting expenditures and your direct response was ‘Absolutely’ ; and all of your other responses in other postings have been exactly in line with that one-word proclamation. So with that, you must absolutely hold to the belief that an organization which most every business person has said needs to be ran like a business, called Federal Congress, should thus only focus on increasing revenue (increasing our taxes) and not on cutting any expenditures (cutting any programs or spending on those programs). Before you respond, remember I said ‘any organization’ and you said ‘Absolutely’.

I've been hearing my whole life that the Federal debt and unbalanced budgets were going to break the country and, yet, it hasn't (nor did it in any of the times in the past when the debt/GDP ratio was similar to now). Why hasn't the country collapsed? Because those wizards of smart always neglected to calculate in the enormous power of the US to generate revenue. (Thank GOD for the Federal Reserve and the lessons learned in late 1920's that spawned its current iteration!)

How does one define the energy revolution brought about by fracking? REVENUE from becoming the world's largest exported of oil and gas.

Ironically, the solution to your example is NOT cost cutting, but REVENUE cutting - that is, cutting taxes. Along with policy revisions that prompt the release of the massive revenue-generation power that the country has at its disposal. And the result is more REVENUE.

I'm not to the point of describing the leadership of DCI as politicians; I still have respect for DCI leadership even if we disagree.