The Purpose of DCI

[Michael Boo]

...

Those who work for DCI are doing something they are passionate about, paying the bills at home, and making enough to afford a reasonable standard of living. ...

Passionate about...check. Paying the bills at home/Making enough to afford a reasonable standard of living...lollollollollollollollollol

[Stu]

I think the real issue is that the "G7" group is motivated by the business/revenue generating conception of DCI whereas most others - to include DCI itself because, really, DCI is NOT just the member corps - is simply happy to exist in a positive state.

Sorry; but the G7 was motivated by the business/revenue generating conception of the G7 and not that of 'DCI'; they even informally referred to themselves as 'We are the show'. If they were motivated for the conception of DCI they would have promoted a business plan which generated DCI support for all corps under the DCI banner not just the G7. Instead, they wanted, for lack of a better terminology, to hijack the organization of DCI for themselves; relegating all non G7 DCI WC corps into pretty much their servitude and to Hades with all DCI OC corps not directly tied to a WC corps. That is a far cry from being motivated by the business/revenue generating conception of DCI for the sake of DCI.

Note: Many corps are also internally ran better than some in the G7; see The Academy.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Stu

[Stu]

DCI exists for the sole purpose of organizing a tour, promoting interest in attending the tour and, as a result, generating the maximum amount of revenue possible to return to the member corps.

Nothing else.

Yes, yes, and oh yeah, yes. And 'DCI' should concern itself with just these matters for all the 'DCI' corps not just the G7.

[perc2100]

Sorry; but the G7 was motivated by the business/revenue generating conception of the G7 and not that of 'DCI'; they even informally referred to themselves as 'We are the show'. If they were motivated for the conception of DCI they would have promoted a business plan which generated DCI support for all corps under the DCI banner not just the G7. Instead, they wanted, for lack of a better terminology, to hijack the organization of DCI for themselves; relegating all non G7 DCI WC corps into pretty much their servitude and to Hades with all DCI OC corps not directly tied to a WC corps. That is a far cry from being motivated by the business/revenue generating conception of DCI for the sake of DCI.

Note: Many corps are also internally ran better than some in the G7; see The Academy.

The cynical side of me wants to reply with something like, "and yet those 'many corps' you mention are no where near as consistently competitively successful as the ToC corps."

But the more logical part of me wants to reply with, well, a bit of logic.

Your argument is based on one side of an argument leaked by the other side. You have no idea what transpired/transpires in the DCI BoD meetings, discussions and communications between all of the DCI corps directors, or any history of this long discussion. To assume that corps decided out of the blue, "hey lets hijack DCI for our own personal benefit!!" seems misinformed and naive.

Don't you think it's at least possible that maybe corps talked for years about ideas to improve DCI, with those ideas not implemented for one reason or another (hint: this is at least implied, if not flat-out said, in leaked emails a few years back IIRC)? Don't you think it's possible that these corps directors felt their ideas were not being implemented and they saw DCI as being more interested in maintaining a flawed status quo instead of venturing into potentially growing ventures?

I'm not "taking sides" or any other such nonsense, other than I'm a drum corps fan looking forward to the activity hopefully being around for a long time. My corps has long-since folded because of financial problems, so it's not like I'm an alumni of any corps on either side of the discussion. I'm just saying that there is likely FAR more to this discussion rather than the crazy black/white argument so many like to think there is.

[perc2100]

Consider these two scenarios:

- A business exists to provide income and earn a little when it can. It's a way to do what you love to do and pay the bills whilst working for oneself.

- A business exists to generate profits through policies enacted to increase revenue, diversify income, etc. whilst providing a desired service and fulfilling a market need.

Many people want DCI to be the latter; a money-maker that can show and sustain growth. Realistically, though DCI operates in the millions, it's really not much different than Big Al's Fish Market. In the end, Al enjoys fish, interacting with customers, etc. and the income pays the bills and then some.

However, investors seeking to profit from Big Al's Fish Market look aggressively at how the Fish Market can become the Fish Supermarket and then the chain of Fish Emporiums!

At the end of the day, it's perfectly fine that Al doesn't seek a wider audience, doesn't grow his range of products, etc. because the mission is being met: revenue exceeds expenditures to a degree which meets he and his family's immediate needs on a sustained, consistent basis.

Could it be that DCI is actually completely healthy and that we actually disagree on the purpose of DCI as a business model?

Those who work for DCI are doing something they are passionate about, paying the bills at home, and making enough to afford a reasonable standard of living. In the end, perhaps this, not considerable growth, outreach, and development, is success. After all, so long as DCI doesn't LOSE money, couldn't we claim that by the second model, DCI is a roaring success?

This brings up a great point. Even when DCI publishes articles talking about growth from Championships week, large movie theater attendance, and record crowds at DCI sponsored showed people are still quick to talk about the activity's demise. While it seems logical that everyone involved is constantly looking to improve numbers (in participation, attendance, volunteering, etc) perhaps there isn't nearly the doom/gloom that others fear. Looking at DCI's webpage, on their "about" page there seem to be four statements of purpose:

1) Touching Lives around the world

2) Showcasing the 'best of the best'

3) Setting the pace in marching music education

4) A growing international network of fans

If you assume the four items are prioritized, then the business end (growing fans) is the last of their ideals: essentially, that would seem to mean DCI skews towards Business Scenario #1. It's possible some individual corps want to skew more towards model #2, which is likely where conflict would arise.

[BRASSO]

You make an excellent point that it's the top corps who would not accept this premise and I think that there's a divide in how it's approached between the "we have it and we want more" camp and the "we're just happy to BE HERE" camp.

First thing an organization must do is to get everyone on the same page as to what its mission is, and an agreement on how best to achieve said Mission.

Edited April 11, 2014 by BRASSO

[Stu]

The cynical side of me wants to reply with something like, "and yet those 'many corps' you mention are no where near as consistently competitively successful as the ToC corps."

And the practical side of me says that staying in the black is actually looking out for the best interest of the youth; and it is a far greater thing to do than going into the red in an attempt to attain a chunk of medal. Again, see the Academy.

But the more logical part of me wants to reply with, well, a bit of logic.

Your argument is based on one side of an argument leaked by the other side. You have no idea what transpired/transpires in the DCI BoD meetings, discussions and communications between all of the DCI corps directors, or any history of this long discussion. To assume that corps decided out of the blue, "hey lets hijack DCI for our own personal benefit!!" seems misinformed and naive.

Don't you think it's at least possible that maybe corps talked for years about ideas to improve DCI, with those ideas not implemented for one reason or another (hint: this is at least implied, if not flat-out said, in leaked emails a few years back IIRC)? Don't you think it's possible that these corps directors felt their ideas were not being implemented and they saw DCI as being more interested in maintaining a flawed status quo instead of venturing into potentially growing ventures?

I'm not "taking sides" or any other such nonsense, other than I'm a drum corps fan looking forward to the activity hopefully being around for a long time. My corps has long-since folded because of financial problems, so it's not like I'm an alumni of any corps on either side of the discussion. I'm just saying that there is likely FAR more to this discussion rather than the crazy black/white argument so many like to think there is.

It is true that only a few know the specific details that occurred in the Board room of DCI. And by the way, I firmly agree that this did not come out of the blue ‘for the 7’. I am sure that the 7 talked extensively amongst themselves for quite a while behind the scenes; that the 7 actually felt their ideas were not being implemented by DCI to their satisfaction; and they saw DCI as being more interested in maintaining what they viewed as a flawed status quo for them instead of venturing into potentially growing ventures for them. And the 7 also saw the system as flawed because they believed that ‘they were the show’ and all other corps were skimming off of what they viewed as their profits. How do I know this? Because I read, I mean really read, the G7 report. But I also think that while the 7 may have implied something was afoot to the non 7 corps behind the scenes, this situation actually caught most all of the non 7 off guard. And how did I come to that conclusion? Because I saw the reaction, immediate reaction, almost visceral reaction, of the non 7 voting members the moment this report became public.

[BRASSO]

this situation actually caught most all of the non 7 off guard. And how did I come to that conclusion? Because I saw the reaction, immediate reaction, almost visceral reaction, of the non 7 voting members the moment this report became public.

You better believe it shocked them. They had no idea that a small cabal was plotting in secret, behind closed doors, with a preposterous, selfish plan that presented the others with an ill conceived plan that came with a threat of a " take it, or leave it " factor meant to intimidate the others into complete capitulation to their demands. But the non G7 reacted in unison in a strong, immediate, and measured way, to thwart the unprecedented coup attempt by this clandestine group. it matters not if the G7 ideas might have merit or not. The MANNER in which this group met in secret and behind closed doors to hatch out their plan was totally inexcuseable, and nobody should think this was an acceptable way to handle affairs among their fellow DCI Member Corps. It was absolutely disgraceful to do this behind closed doors like they did.

Some things are funny, silly, and what not. But the G7 behavior was not funny and not silly. It was positively shameful and inexcusable behavior by the G7 upon the others to plot this out in the manner in which they did.

Edited April 11, 2014 by BRASSO

[Jeff Ream]

You better believe it shocked them. They had no idea that a small cabal was plotting in secret, behind closed doors, with a preposterous, selfish plan that presented the others with an ill conceived plan that came with a threat of a " take it, or leave it " factor meant to intimidate the others into complete capitulation to their demands. But the non G7 reacted in unison in a strong, immediate, and measured way, to thwart the unprecedented coup attempt by this clandestine group. it matters not if the G7 ideas might have merit or not. The MANNER in which this group met in secret and behind closed doors to hatch out their plan was totally inexcuseable, and nobody should think this was an acceptable way to handle affairs among their fellow DCI Member Corps. It was absolutely disgraceful to do this behind closed doors like they did.

Some things are funny, silly, and what not. But the G7 behavior was not funny and not silly. It was positively shameful and inexcusable behavior by the G7 upon the others to plot this out in the manner in which they did.

But....since all of this now almost 4 years ago...what have the non 7 rolled out to help make DCI better? Ok SoundSport nd Drumline Battle were good ideas, and with time and patience will grow.

But to really throw the 7 off their track, they need THE idea, whatever that idea is. They need to stop being reactionary and be protagonists

[Stu]

But....since all of this now almost 4 years ago...what have the non 7 rolled out to help make DCI better? Ok SoundSport nd Drumline Battle were good ideas, and with time and patience will grow.

But to really throw the 7 off their track, they need THE idea, whatever that idea is. They need to stop being reactionary and be protagonists

Of course this is just my opinion; but while there was a shake-up on the Board, and some contention just after the proposal was made public, I think the non-7 directors are still timid or slightly afraid of a real split or fracture. And because of that I think they are rather reluctant to tell any of the 7 directors something similar to what Mike Helton and Brian France of NASCAR told Toney Stewart when they bluntly told him, “Here is the thing Hoss; you need NASCAR more than NASCAR needs you. So, suck it up or go do your thing apart from NASCAR”.