Why won't DCI follow this type of path?

[garfield]

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?

Of course! They've made their decision to stay on the plateau. Their situation sounds like they are comfortable but you're wrong for thinking they are not growing. They most certainly are!

Let's presume they started in business with 12 clients who wanted cabinets and they eagerly ramped up to accommodate the demand. When each job was done, and then when all 12 were done, what did the owners do? They went out and got 12 more clients and now they have 24. Next time, they learned to replace each client as the job was done and, with each new client to replace a completed one, they grew their client base.

If a business isn't growing, it's dying.

(You love doing this, don't you, Stu?!)

Now, even if a business sells a consumable that demands clients to return for more of the product, you might consider it stable because demand stays stable, right? But it's not, because customers come and customers go. They find different outlets to supply their needs and they change their tastes. Regardless of the reason, a business that doesn't plan to replace clients is eventually dead. A successful business always seeks to grow its base especially when it reaches a plateau because the experienced businessman knows that the plateau is actually pointed downward over time.

But you may wonder if this applies to drum corps, and of course it does and especially so because drum corps has been had shrinking market demand AND supply for decades, and is led by people who claim to want to see it appeal to more people to make it grow. Or generate a growing revenue. Both desires require different methods, but both demand growth.

[Stu]

Of course! They've made their decision to stay on the plateau. Their situation sounds like they are comfortable but you're wrong for thinking they are not growing. They most certainly are!

Let's presume they started in business with 12 clients who wanted cabinets and they eagerly ramped up to accommodate the demand. When each job was done, and then when all 12 were done, what did the owners do? They went out and got 12 more clients and now they have 24. Next time, they learned to replace each client as the job was done and, with each new client to replace a completed one, they grew their client base.

If a business isn't growing, it's dying.

(You love doing this, don't you, Stu?!)

Now, even if a business sells a consumable that demands clients to return for more of the product, you might consider it stable because demand stays stable, right? But it's not, because customers come and customers go. They find different outlets to supply their needs and they change their tastes. Regardless of the reason, a business that doesn't plan to replace clients is eventually dead. A successful business always seeks to grow its base especially when it reaches a plateau because the experienced businessman knows that the plateau is actually pointed downward over time.

(Yes; I love interacting with people, bouncing around ideas, learning from the opinions and views of others, and of course on ocassion metaphorically poking a few bears for entertainment)

Ahhhh.. I see our difference of opinion now. I think that we would both agree that for the first 23 years of his cabinet business the business grew because each year he expanded the shop, expanded the number of tools, expanded his marketing, expanded the number of clients contracted, and expanded his revenue profit percentage. The difference in our view lies in the past 11 years of his business. Over the past 11 years he certainly did replace broken equipment and updated technology but he did not expanded the amount of equipment used in the business; through existing marketing, not expanded marketing, but existing marketing he certainly did replace former clients from the previous year with an equal number of clients the following year; and factoring in cost of living/inflation the revenue profit percentage has been consistent from year to year. I see that as ‘maintaining the status quo and stability’ of the business over the past 11 years, whereas you still see that as a form of ‘growth’. Before I address your last paragraph concerning drum corps (which I left off here) am I correct on this assessment so far?

[garfield]

(Yes; I love interacting with people, bouncing around ideas, learning from the opinions and views of others, and of course on ocassion metaphorically poking a few bears for entertainment)

Ahhhh.. I see our difference of opinion now. I think that we would both agree that for the first 23 years of his cabinet business the business grew because each year he expanded the shop, expanded the number of tools, expanded his marketing, expanded the number of clients contracted, and expanded his revenue profit percentage. The difference in our view lies in the past 11 years of his business. Over the past 11 years he certainly did replace broken equipment and updated technology but he did not expanded the amount of equipment used in the business; through existing marketing, not expanded marketing, but existing marketing he certainly did replace former clients from the previous year with an equal number of clients the following year; and factoring in cost of living/inflation the revenue profit percentage has been consistent from year to year. I see that as ‘maintaining the status quo and stability’ of the business over the past 11 years, whereas you still see that as a form of ‘growth’. Before I address your last paragraph concerning drum corps (which I left off here) am I correct on this assessment so far?

Do you see that "maintaining the status quo" is, by definition, growth? Maintenance is growth. Growth is maintenance. In fact, I could contend that the status quo in your example would have been to continue to expand, but once they stopped expanding they were still growing. The definition of not growing is contraction. Expansion, contraction, or growth at the current pace. There are no other words in the lexicon of this example, or most businesses.

And we don't have a difference of opinion; rather, you're wrong in your definition. :-)

If a drum corps has consistent "real" (i.e. net of inflation) funding that is permanent forever then that corps could continue to do what it's always done and expect their placement to continue to erode (even with temporary exceptions) as the rest of the activity continues to grow to be able to afford to update equipment and hire the latest talent, etc. If a corps wants to expand up to the "next level", however that's defined, it must do what it's always done plus add expansion to get to the next level.

I've plateaued many times in my career. It's comfortable there, on the plateau. But while I may have been in fat city making over $100-grand a year, soon I found that $100m wasn't that much income any more, and it felt like I was contracting even though I was holding steady and comfy. Most businessmen get bored with the plateau (not all, as is your example) because expansion is actually the lifeblood of a successful businessman. He got used to expanding in the early years and, when that excitement is replaced with the plateau, every job gets boring. Growth to stay on the plateau begs the question: "Is this all there is?" Some will say "This is all I want", but most others would say they liked the challenge of the "expansion" phase much more. So they start to expand and find a higher plateau.

I suspect you and I will agree on how this description relates to drum corps. Looked at in the above light, you can probably describe more accurately the current position of each and every drum corps.

[Stu]

My definition may be wrong to you but not to my friend who owns the cabinet business, nor that of many small business owners around the nation who do not have business degrees or formal business education other than from the school of hard knocks. But you would also consider their definition wrong as well. Be that as it may, next question: Would you consider the contraction of a business, which yields greater bottom line profit for both the business and owner, as ‘growth’ and ‘success’? (I can cite a specific example if you wish)

[ranintothedoor]

He got used to expanding in the early years and, when that excitement is replaced with the plateau, every job gets boring. Growth to stay on the plateau begs the question: "Is this all there is?" Some will say "This is all I want", but most others would say they liked the challenge of the "expansion" phase much more. So they start to expand and find a higher plateau.

I suspect you and I will agree on how this description relates to drum corps. Looked at in the above light, you can probably describe more accurately the current position of each and every drum corps.

Just thought I'd jump in there... I've really enjoyed reading this discussion. :-)

I'd say the furniture person may find that plateau satisfying because he is a craftsman first and foremost and that is the reward, not the growth of the business side of things.

The folks who do drum corps... some may not want to do the "next level" thing because they find joy and satisfaction in the product they create now. They can grow in terms of trying to make a close-to-perfect product year after year without changing the nature of the product.

[Stu]

I'd say the furniture person may find that plateau satisfying because he is a craftsman first and foremost and that is the reward, not the growth of the business side of things.

True in this sense: For the first 23 years he was able to grow what he loves into a profitable business; then for the past eleven years he has found a balance between using a craft he loves to financially support the living standards and family engagement at the lake house he desires without in turn also destroying the love he has for his craft. To him the business and ever increasing profit margin was never the end game. the business was a means to engage in making a profit with what he loves as a craft without swimming around in debt, and he expanded the business just to the level which supports what he also loves which is the interaction he has with his family at the lake house.

[cixelsyd]

"More units wouldn't necessarily translate into more kids; just more small(er) groups."

Seriously, does that sentence make sense to you?

Makes sense to me in that "more corps" does not guarantee "more kids". For example, say DCI went from 40 corps to 60 by reducing the maximum corps size from 150 to 100. They get more corps, but the number of member spots is unchanged.

I have more faith in the potential to grow participation in the activity, though. It is not a zero-sum game, IMO.

[Fran Haring]

Masters update:

Bubba Watson wins the 2014 Masters... his second Masters victory in three years.

That is two more Masters green jackets than any drum corps.

Therefore, Bubba Watson is better than any drum corps. And he makes a lot more money.

[garfield]

Makes sense to me in that "more corps" does not guarantee "more kids". For example, say DCI went from 40 corps to 60 by reducing the maximum corps size from 150 to 100. They get more corps, but the number of member spots is unchanged.

I have more faith in the potential to grow participation in the activity, though. It is not a zero-sum game, IMO.

Well, sure. The math makes sense the way you describe it, but is it realistic?

With the number of corps now in existence, if DCI is successful in attracting more kids, where will they go? Many corps cut hundreds in auditions and many of those go home. If DCI wants to keep those kids in the loop, and attract more kids, they'll have to increase the number of corps or the maximum number of marchers per corps. Both are expansion of the activity if more kids march, but which is a more organically sound method of broadening out MM demand for the activity?

I contend it's more corps, not more marchers per corps.

[ranintothedoor]

Many corps cut hundreds in auditions and many of those go home.

I auditioned for Cadets the first time in 2000... I was 14. I was cut, so I went home.

If someone at that camp had said, "here's a couple other corps to consider; try them out!" I think I would have marched every summer hence. I honestly believe that's all it would've taken. My folks were willing to support me and I really had no clue what was going on and how the whole drum corps experience was worth doing regardless of the corps. And probably many more in my situation would have done the same.

But since most corps treat themselves like islands instead of a community, the activity suffers. All those kids cut... would fill out all the corps to the 150 level easy!