Why won't DCI follow this type of path?

[Stu]

It does not appear to me that there is any "original intent" that "charitable" was to be recognized exclusively as "public benefit" in nature.

Exclusive in the original intent? No. Seen as a separate action apart from, equal in nature to, but still a separate action apart from the religious and educational in the original intent? Yes. It was not intended as a precursory word describing all others but a word of separate action. Again, that idea came way later.

[Stu]

But "charity" is a tax designation that has less to do with the function of the organization and more to do with their financial needs.

I understand what you're saying and agree: the Blue Devils are not a charity. But that's just an academic discussion for your own mental stimulation because the tax code is less likely to change than DCI. :P

Again, please refer to my post #263 as to why that is ‘now’ the way charities are designated but has not always been that way.

[CCorps]

My point is that it's totally moot; it matters not to this discussion.

Again, please refer to my post #263 as to why that is now the way charities are designated but has not always been that way.

[garfield]

As for WGI's "success", the reality is that their dues are paid through schools, mostly. As cixe stated that kids pay those fees, ya, sure they do. But the point is that WGI is receiving money for the right to perform (usually with school instruments), where DCI pays out its performers. That's not bad, but it makes DCI depend on ticket sales more, and WGI less. Relative, but fact.

So now that I'm halfway through my second scotch, let's see if we can decipher this text.

First, you now agree that, while schools sign up their winter lines at WGI, the kids are still paying the fees. Few, very few, schools pay the fees for the kids from the general music budget. So where does that leave your contention that DCI is missing out on the "academic" fees?

What I see is that kids pay corps for the right to march (with corps instruments). Somewhere between 1/3 and 95% of a corps' budget is made up of dues paid by kids to march (see the 990's thread of 2012). The commonality? Kids are paying the fees in both cases (or parents are, in most cases). In WGI, the vast majority of fans watching the performances are performers themselves. In DCI, the vast majority of fans watching bought a full-priced ticket to view the entertainment. WGI has no performance revenue to pass along to the performing units. DCI has millions of ticket revenue that they pass on to corps (net of expenses). WGI was not formed to generate revenue for performing units, but DCI was. I'm still not getting your point that DCI should be more like WGI. Frankly, I see DCI as way outperforming WGI in revenue production and profits delivered to their constituents (see 990 of both for evidence).

DCI doesn't "pay out its performers". It pays out revenue to its member corps. See how your wording is confusing?

WGI is dependent on performER fees; DCI is dependent on performANCE fees. Which is better? See the 990's and the mission statement of both orgs for the answer.

But you still suggest DCI should be more like WGI? "Academic" fees (that don't exist)?

I hope you can see how your claims make no sense in the context of both orgs. And I'm really hoping you can clarify your point for my (increasingly foggy) mind's benefit.

[garfield]

Just to be clear, I don't believe XOM is sponsoring the PGA out of the goodness of their black hearts. However, it's basic PR. If we can't agree there, maybe this won't be productive at all.

"Black hearts"? Hmmm. Interesting characterization. Maybe this page will change your mind about the color of their "heart": http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/community/worldwide-giving/worldwide-giving-report

(For those not inclined to click, XOM and its employees donated over $30million to worldwide charities in 2012. And the XOM Foundation donated more than $256million worldwide).

Exxon Mobil's "sponsorship" of the PGA is not sponsorship, nor is it PR. It's ad buys, based on the PGA's demographic that fits in with XOM's target market. Nothing more. Ad space purchasing is not "PR". Running commercials about how many birds they washed with dishwasher soap is PR. PGA sponsorship is advertising.

I still think our discussion could be productive if your contentions were clearer in their meaning.

Edited April 11, 2014 by garfield

[garfield]

I'm optimistic about the future of the activity, so long as it isn't so bound to its unnecessary "we've always done it this way" tendencies. I simply think that growth needs to not be focused on more units; there are as many as the market appears to be able to maintain. (No, it's not DCI's job, but it is important to offer a stable experience to maximize the money coming in from participants.) Revenue is important, and the traditional activity may not drive much more revenue as-is.

Here again is a paragraph that's filled with, IMO, mumbo-jumbo that makes little sense.

Doesn't it make sense to you that, with all the stylistic and rules changes that DCI has effected over the last decade, their modus-operendi is about as far from "this is the way we've always done it" as it can possibly get? Is DCI today more like, or unlike, the way it was done 10, 20, 30 years ago?

If DCI should not be focused on more units, what should their growth be focused on? We agree (see?) that growth is important, but you seem to think that the growth should come from the existing corps doing more year-round to generate revenue. How would you envision this? DCI fall marching competitions? How does DCI make money to return to corps in that model? Corps doing more than July 4th parades? What, specifically, do you envision they should do with no marching members available in the fall and winter?

Are you saying that every corps should have a "System Blue" to fill in the off season?

Surf is entrenched in its community and doing great things to enamor love. Other corps can do the same (and I'll bet, do) but even Surf will admit that helping out and promoting Special Olympics, or helping hurricane victims, doesn't generate revenue.

What growth vehicles do you suggest corps do that generate more revenue?

DCI produces a summer tour (as is its mandate) that is stable, defined, and run exceptionally well. What does that have remotely to do with Glassmen folding and their website becoming a complaint blog? What would you have DCI do differently that might have saved Glassmen? DCI's tour structure enables kids to enjoy a well-run national tour; that certainly helps assure that corps can charge the maximum revenue from their MM's, doesn't it? What would you have them do differently?

Revenue, and revenue GROWTH, are surely THE most important thing (I've made this contention many times). You suggest the "traditional" activity may not support more revenue but, if there are more corps into which more kids can try out and pay tour fees, isn't that organic growth more impactful than DCI finding more "non-traditional" sources of revenue?

What if the worldwide growth of Drumline battle and Soundsport teams attract more ad dollars and lead to more kids trying out for "traditional" corps (new or existing). Isn't that organic growth in the "traditional" sense?

[garfield]

I don't think you're picking on me. I just think we're on polar opposites, and that's fine. I hope that we can find some things we agree on.

If by "polar opposites" you mean that I make sense and you don't, then I agree.

But now that I've finished my two Red Labels, I can say "I love you, Man!".

I hope that you can present your contentions in a way that makes sense but, up until now, I haven't seen any ideas from your posts that do so.

[drumcat]

Here again is a paragraph that's filled with, IMO, mumbo-jumbo that makes little sense.

Doesn't it make sense to you that, with all the stylistic and rules changes that DCI has effected over the last decade, their modus-operendi is about as far from "this is the way we've always done it" as it can possibly get? Is DCI today more like, or unlike, the way it was done 10, 20, 30 years ago?

If DCI should not be focused on more units, what should their growth be focused on? We agree (see?) that growth is important, but you seem to think that the growth should come from the existing corps doing more year-round to generate revenue. How would you envision this? DCI fall marching competitions? How does DCI make money to return to corps in that model? Corps doing more than July 4th parades? What, specifically, do you envision they should do with no marching members available in the fall and winter?

Are you saying that every corps should have a "System Blue" to fill in the off season?

Surf is entrenched in its community and doing great things to enamor love. Other corps can do the same (and I'll bet, do) but even Surf will admit that helping out and promoting Special Olympics, or helping hurricane victims, doesn't generate revenue.

What growth vehicles do you suggest corps do that generate more revenue?

DCI produces a summer tour (as is its mandate) that is stable, defined, and run exceptionally well. What does that have remotely to do with Glassmen folding and their website becoming a complaint blog? What would you have DCI do differently that might have saved Glassmen? DCI's tour structure enables kids to enjoy a well-run national tour; that certainly helps assure that corps can charge the maximum revenue from their MM's, doesn't it? What would you have them do differently?

Revenue, and revenue GROWTH, are surely THE most important thing (I've made this contention many times). You suggest the "traditional" activity may not support more revenue but, if there are more corps into which more kids can try out and pay tour fees, isn't that organic growth more impactful than DCI finding more "non-traditional" sources of revenue?

What if the worldwide growth of Drumline battle and Soundsport teams attract more ad dollars and lead to more kids trying out for "traditional" corps (new or existing). Isn't that organic growth in the "traditional" sense?

It makes a lot more sense when you interpret your opinions not as fact.

For example, when you say "modus-operandi" and what I think is a bunch of "mumbo-jumbo", I can factually respond that show formats are, indeed, very much the same. Football field, 10-15 minutes per group, a few minutes in-between, and the better groups are using no less than 125 performers each over that time.

That's not mumbo-jumbo.

Here's another one. When you suggest that I'm wrong about more units being the primary driver of growth, you ask me for the same opinions, again, to discredit them. If you want my opinions about growth, please reread what I've already stated. I'll summarize:

- Maximize the values of corps to their communities

- Make attempts to become less seasonal in ways that make sense regionally

- Develop additional programming for year-round performances

- Involve groups in government-funded programs, such as schools and art venues

These ideas are not new, not mine alone, and are *in my opinion* going to be more fruitful than creating corps that don't make semifinals.

Your point about Surf is very solid, and follows the first item. If they have problems in the future, their community will be more likely to step in and help them than if their food truck was idle, etc. They are a community-based group, and for whatever they do or don't on the field, they are winning at home. This matters, and while all corps do this to some degree, the key component is that this goodwill needs to be entrenched, habitual, and part of the normal "modus-operandi" of corps. And before you say "they all do it", there is a PR component that needs to accompany it. Why?

Because it gets me back to the example of corporate sponsorship. I'll bypass XOM and the minefield you laid out about it. Let's go back to A. J. Wright. They just wanted to be a title sponsor. My suggestion is that DCI would do well with attaining sponsors like that if they did a more comprehensive job of PR. The work Surf did, for example, might catch the attention of a company who would be willing to pay a large amount of money to attach themselves to good work like that. Working to bolster DCI and corps' reputations as community partners would help dramatically in getting a sponsor who wants to be presented in that light. Thus, that was the XOM/PGA example. Nothing more than that.

Finally, I'll mention that revenue is not growth per se. If we have more losing business models and more money, that isn't a benefit to the activity as a whole.

Good luck, and sorry to have hurt you so much, Garfield.

[garfield]

It makes a lot more sense when you interpret your opinions not as fact.

For example, when you say "modus-operandi" and what I think is a bunch of "mumbo-jumbo", I can factually respond that show formats are, indeed, very much the same. Football field, 10-15 minutes per group, a few minutes in-between, and the better groups are using no less than 125 performers each over that time.

That's not mumbo-jumbo.

Here's another one. When you suggest that I'm wrong about more units being the primary driver of growth, you ask me for the same opinions, again, to discredit them. If you want my opinions about growth, please reread what I've already stated. I'll summarize:

- Maximize the values of corps to their communities

- Make attempts to become less seasonal in ways that make sense regionally

- Develop additional programming for year-round performances

- Involve groups in government-funded programs, such as schools and art venues

These ideas are not new, not mine alone, and are *in my opinion* going to be more fruitful than creating corps that don't make semifinals.

Your point about Surf is very solid, and follows the first item. If they have problems in the future, their community will be more likely to step in and help them than if their food truck was idle, etc. They are a community-based group, and for whatever they do or don't on the field, they are winning at home. This matters, and while all corps do this to some degree, the key component is that this goodwill needs to be entrenched, habitual, and part of the normal "modus-operandi" of corps. And before you say "they all do it", there is a PR component that needs to accompany it. Why?

Because it gets me back to the example of corporate sponsorship. I'll bypass XOM and the minefield you laid out about it. Let's go back to A. J. Wright. They just wanted to be a title sponsor. My suggestion is that DCI would do well with attaining sponsors like that if they did a more comprehensive job of PR. The work Surf did, for example, might catch the attention of a company who would be willing to pay a large amount of money to attach themselves to good work like that. Working to bolster DCI and corps' reputations as community partners would help dramatically in getting a sponsor who wants to be presented in that light. Thus, that was the XOM/PGA example. Nothing more than that.

Finally, I'll mention that revenue is not growth per se. If we have more losing business models and more money, that isn't a benefit to the activity as a whole.

Good luck, and sorry to have hurt you so much, Garfield.

Hurt me? Please, don't give your comments so much dramatic weight. You've obviously given some thought to your positions, all I ask is that you present them with weight instead of just proclamation.

Isn't AJWright an example of low-hanging fruit? Are there other music providers that can be attracted to the eyeballs that drum corps provides?

You did bring up an interesting hint, though. The idea of smaller, more regional or even local, sponsors instead of (or in addition to) big national ones. I think there are companies in each local market where DCI has a show (and not just regionals, every local show, too) that might be interested in tying in with DCI's PR. Do you think that effort has legs?

And see, we can agree! Revenue is surely not growth, but growing revenue IS growth. At the DCI level it's activity-wide growth because that revenue is distributed (pro-rata) to all the corps. At the corps level, revenue growth feeds the beast that generated it. If that's a poorly-run business model the revenue will disappear and not continue. Of course, the difficulty comes in defining "poorly-run", doesn't it?

[Stu]

Garfield: You have been adamant that if a business is not ‘growing’ it is dying; and that to be successful a business must grow, grow, and grow. Ok; there is a friend of mine who owns a custom cabinet business in my home town. He started it around 34 years ago. He works around six days a week with one of his sons and they both work in the shop as well as go do the installs. They do this not only for revenue, but also because they enjoy and love the craftsmanship. He and his wife own a modest home, and they also own a lake house where he and his entire family spend time on occasion when they want a respite. They are not for want; they have a nice retirement fund, and as far as I know the business is not in debt and other than a home equity loan which they took out to expand the lake house neither are they personally in debt. The cabinet business shows a profit each year, again it does show a profit, enough to support their wants and needs; and with the exception of updating tools and/or technology and adjusting contracts for cost of living/inflation the business has not ‘grown’ in any sense at all for well over a decade. They pretty much have had the same number of contracts each year for the past eleven years because they do not want to expand and they are extremely comfortable with the profit margin they garner each year. Here is my question to you: Since they have not chosen to grow, grow, and grow is that a ‘successful’ business?

Edited April 13, 2014 by Stu