Why won't DCI follow this type of path?

[Stu]

You could start by having all DCI corps vote on rule changes (not just the member corps).

Thank you for thinking about something to get away from the current system instead of defending the status quo!!! To me I think DCI could also start by simply having the majority on the Board, and on the rules voting committee, people who are completely independent of any competing corps within DCI.

[cixelsyd]

1) you're right: the answer is MASSIVELY complex. We can likely all agree on that

Yes. Remember I said that.

2) the real question is WHY is attendance at the macro level down (IF it is)? DCI had record attendance at some of their large shows, an increase in Championship week, huge amounts of theater ticket-buyers, and even made money live-streaming Finals this year. In other words, from a DCI business stand-point is attendance looking like a major problem if the shows they operate are successful?

If by "macro level" you mean local shows, is there any data that indicates this is a) legitimate (i.e. across the board AND hard data and not observational anecdotes) and b) a growing trend of decline over multiple seasons? If there is hard data, there are so many variables for independently run shows that could affect attendance, it would be very difficult to equate decline to something like, "damm you G7!"

By "macro level", I meant overall activity-wide season-long number of paid admissions, viewed over the long term (i.e. 1970s to today). At the "macro level", it ought to be clear enough that attendance has declined. As for "why", like I said, I think the answer is very complex, and that part of it is the widening disparity between competitors providing less competitive excitement for the ticket-purchasing dollar.

Much of it, stated in overly simple terms, is the result of fewer corps, fewer shows, and fewer marchers.

The successes you list above are much of what I had in mind when I said that the DCI office has done well tactically. They do just about everything that can be done within the constraints of fewer corps, fewer shows, fewer marchers and greater disparity. But at the strategic level, where the member corps and BOD steer DCI, has everything possible been done to buck these trends toward fewer corps/shows/marchers and greater disparity?

3) you talk about Competitive Disparity, but throughout the history of DCI there have been very few Champions. Even during the tic era, where sheets were radically weighted towards performance and not design, there were 'only' 5 corps who won (with only 2 corps winning 9 out of 12 Championship years during the DCI Tick era). Conversely, in the last 12 seasons, 5 corps have won the Championship: BD 5, Cavaliers 3, Cadets 2, Phantom & Crown 1 each. That is fairly similar (though for whatever reason the Championships seem a little more spread out than 72-83).

If there is a perception of competitive disparity, it was no less equal at any time throughout DCI History.

How can you evaluate parity by looking only at champions?

[garfield]

Gar and Perc: While I am not a soothsayer and could have softened my words into a more PC sounding format like, “It seems to me that maybe BD, I cannot predict and say for sure, but maybe BD would do something kind of sort of similar to….” Sorry I did not use that format. My contention, however, is that BD are survivors, they are smart, they would adapt; they would not die on the vine if rules were changed in DCI to help cut expenses for all corps. They would explore various options to adapt, and those were some ideas that they ‘might’ (happy now ) explore. The thing is they certainly would adapt to any changes.

Yea, gotcha. Can't disagree with BD being a survivor no matter what happens.

[MikeD]

I see no competitive downside to the isolated statement above but only a competitive upside; especially if it yields cuts in expenses that only a handful of corps can currently afford which would then likely increase the number of competitive corps. NASCAR has RADICALLY restructured its rules and regulations for that very reason. If the DCI 'tours' were altered BD would adapt and do something along the lines of their BD entertainment; they would use the corps to do more external gigs to make money in between DCI shows and that would keep their quality high as well as increase their revenue stream. The kicker here is that it appears NASCAR is way ore altruistic and concerned about the outrageously increasing expenditures to compete in their activity than DCI is concerning their activity.

Would potential members WANT such a summer experience, enough at the top level to keep the quality high? The corps still has to transport, feed and house the corps all summer, regardless of what they are actually doing.

What about the rest of the WC corps, esp those that do not have the infrastructure in place to become some sort of entertainment conglomerate. Are there enough corporate-style events to keep all of the corps busy doing non-competitive events for some portion of the summer? And again...housing, meals, transportation, rehearsal facilities...it gets harder and harder to find space for a night or two to house corps. Where would they find housing space for an extended period of time? Would they make money enough to pay for their costs at these events? Would members want to participate in such an activity?

[Kamarag]

You also must remember that NASCAR is not a curcuit where a bunch or race teams banded together to create a league, one they control.

NASCAR is an independently owned organization that allows teams to compete using their rules. They give the teams input into competitive rules because they choose to, not because they are bound to. You could argue that the top few teams have more influence, but they really don't due to the way the France family runs NASCAR.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Kamarag

[garfield]

I don't think there really is any way for DCI to drastically cut their costs, given that expenses of touring (all of them) make up the largest area of costs. The equipment costs are not the driving factors of the increased expenses, IMO. Corps can and do resell their equipment on a fairly regular basis, to bands around the country...one of the great things about multi-key horns. The band I teach actually has a Cadet tuba from 2000, that we bought off of another school that had purchased a large number of their horns sometime after 2000m, as one tiny little example.

Reducing touring further from the 7 or 8 weeks that it is now also reduces performance opportunities, which reduces revenue to some small extent. Reduce the schedule too much, and potential members might not think it worth the $$$. Who knows on that one.

A big, important point I hadn't thought to include in the discussion.

Kids want to tour. Can corps charge their normal "confiscatory" fees ($1 to Rush Limbaugh) for a shortened tour?

And considering the number of corps for whom MM fees is THE major component of their annual revenue, what would that do to those corps without significant outside funding?

Would shortening the tour to help control the costs actually work to the detriment of those who need the lower costs, and actually help those corps that don't survive on MM fees?

Be mindful of unintended consequences of seeming "solutions". Black swans are everywhere.

[Stu]

I don't think there really is any way for DCI to drastically cut their costs, given that expenses of touring (all of them) make up the largest area of costs. The equipment costs are not the driving factors of the increased expenses, IMO. Corps can and do resell their equipment on a fairly regular basis, to bands around the country...one of the great things about multi-key horns. The band I teach actually has a Cadet tuba from 2000, that we bought off of another school that had purchased a large number of their horns sometime after 2000m, as one tiny little example.

Reducing touring further from the 7 or 8 weeks that it is now also reduces performance opportunities, which reduces revenue to some small extent. Reduce the schedule too much, and potential members might not think it worth the $$$. Who knows on that one.

I know this is hypothetical, but let’s face it DCP is a hypothetical world; anyway let's say that you were secured by DCI to figure out a way to cut touring expenditures for competing corps so that more corps could engage in DCI competition. 'And' you were told that your bonus structure was proportional to the percentage savings you could implement for the corps. What ideas would you at least brainstorm? Come on, play along here!

[HockeyDad]

No, it really wouldn't reduce costs all that much, if at all. Even if the corps east of the Miss. had to remain east of the Miss. until after July 4, and those west of the Miss. to the Rockies had to remain in that area, and the west coast corps had to remain on the coast, they still have to travel all over the area on a nightly basis to the next show site/housing site, feed the corps, house the corps, and find places to rehearse. Plus...there would need to be sufficient shows (sponsors) to provide them the ability to have full seasons within each geographic area. Plus...you are only talking about a couple of weeks here...and the west coast corps already do pretty much what you are talking about.

What steps could be taken to reduce costs in your opinion? Never mind, looks like you answered that above. Edited April 4, 2014 by HockeyDad

[HockeyDad]

If dci were like NASCAR, their championships would be in mid June.

[garfield]

I know this is hypothetical, but let’s face it DCP is a hypothetical world; anyway let's say that you were secured by DCI to figure out a way to cut touring expenditures for competing corps so that more corps could engage in DCI competition. 'And' you were told that your bonus structure was proportional to the percentage savings you could implement for the corps. What ideas would you at least brainstorm? Come on, play along here!

My first idea would be to figure out how to go get a real job.

Seriously, if I really understood DCI and how it's structured, I'd demand payment up front for whatever services I'm expected to provide.

A bonus based on performance? Uhh, no.

I get your point, Stu, but I don't think financial reward from this activity is going to be the best motivator to generate solutions to the cost of touring. That motivation likely would work best to get ideas on revenue, however.

Now, that said, why is there not a centralized purchasing division in DCI through which ALL corps are supplied with souvies, food, transportation, and fuel? Some directors see themselves as master-marketers and business negotiators, but actually prevent the activity as a whole from benefiting from centralized purchasing, IMO.