Jump to content

The Purpose of DCI


Recommended Posts

I'm half-tempted to give it another read myself. I have to get good and snookered to deal with drumcat's explanations, and this might make me laugh (under the influence of scotch) this time, instead of nearly crying as happened real-time.

We sometimes hear people say that DCP serves little to no useful purpose. But here is an example where the orginal, unfiltered, G7 PowerPoint Presentation in the own words of its chief architects can be read directly by inquisitive minded people. And likewise, the word for word response by the Troopers Executive Director to the G7.... again, unfiltered. This allows the reader themselves to be educated properly and to draw their own conclusions on whether this G7 acted in an open atmosphere, good faith, manner, in expressing their views, and whether or not the G7's presentation was made to other Corps in a collegial manner meant for discussion with other member Corps, or made in a more intimidating, mostly take it or leave it fashion. Likewise, one can read the Troopers non G7 response to determine if it was made in any divisive manner, or was made in a strong manner of refutation of the G7's claims but generated in a response fashion that was mature, collegial, and in a quest to work together on issues that divide. All this is there for the reading directly, and can be done without outside influences, biases, and so forth. This is DCP at its best, imo, as here it provides fans access to info they probably can not get elsewhere, Such black out or censorship of info, as a result can arrive later to them in a filtered, and thoroughly biased, and misrepresented way by others as to what was said, how it was done,and what was done... and thats not helpful to understanding very much,, imo.

Edited by BRASSO
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that the Troopers response from 2013 was from their Board of Directors and was in response to the 2013 power grab not the original 2010 attempt. However, I believe 2013 was just a further attempt.

True... Historical context point well made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We sometimes hear people say that DCP serves little to no useful purpose. But here is an example where the orginal, unfiltered, G7 PowerPoint Presentation in the own words of its chief architects can be read directly by inquisitive minded people. And likewise, the word for word response by the Troopers Executive Director to the G7.... again, unfiltered. This allows the reader themselves to be educated properly and to draw their own conclusions on whether this G7 acted in an open atmosphere, good faith, manner, in expressing their views, and whether or not the G7's presentation was made to other Corps in a collegial manner meant for discussion with other member Corps, or made in a more intimidating, mostly take it or leave it fashion. Likewise, one can read the Troopers non G7 response to determine if it was made in any divisive manner, or was made in a strong manner of refutation of the G7's claims but generated in a response fashion that was mature, collegial, and in a quest to work together on issues that divide. All this is there for the reading directly, and can be done without outside influences, biases, and so forth. This is DCP at its best, imo, as here it provides fans access to info they probably can not get elsewhere, Such black out or censorship of info, as a result can arrive later to them in a filtered, and thoroughly biased, and misrepresented way by others as to what was said, how it was done,and what was done... and thats not helpful to understanding very much,, imo.

You and I most assuredly agree with regular consistency, and I don't disagree with these thoughts.

However, that said, one thing that a good, level-headed friend of mind regularly reminds me, one thing that is not evident from the G7 presentation is the discussion/arguments that most likely occurred prior to the release of the G7's plan.

It's easy for me to imagine that the members, both individually and as an unofficial group, voiced their opinions and potential solutions on many occasions with the other directors. Likely in the collegiate, "over a beer" circumstance as well as more-forceful official discussions. After all, Hop's intentions have been known for more than a decade, and he's masterfully implemented his well-defined plan with mastery of the "nudge" method.

I don't believe this proposal sprung up overnight. More likely it is an expression of exasperation after considerable time trying to convince the others that something drastic and different must occur.

At the same time, I condemn the proposal and manner in which it was presented. IMO, it was so poorly constructed as to be a horrid serious proposal for an action that would drastically change the activity, ala 1972. It was less a formal plan than a collection of disjointed fantasies, and was insulting in its amateurish construction.

Still, after the teapot cools and the pitchforks are put away, I wonder about their view of related events prior to the plan's formal release. I bet we'd find that, in their minds, they felt they distinctly acting in the best interest of saving the activity, even if it mostly of benefit to themselves.

Many here suggest that those who wear tinfoil hats are off their rocker about potential slippery-slope issues that reflect pretty well the plan Hop laid down 14 years ago. And because we never heard any sort of formal retraction - many would say "It never happened! What's the problem?" - I keep remembering NUDGE, and that its master is still in the house.

Let's hope he's been marginalized enough to not be taken seriously if any other similar effort is raised by him again.

Edited by garfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I bet we'd find that, in their minds, they felt they distinctly acting in the best interest of saving the activity, even if it mostly of benefit to themselves...

Ehhhhhhhh... reverse that thought and, for what it is worth, I will agree: I bet we'd find that, in their minds, they felt if it mostly benefited the 7 they distinctly believed that they were acting in the best interest of saving the DCI activity. Why do I think that? Because as Milward Simpson of the Troopers pointed out last year, DCI Founding member Jim Jones used the phrase, "We are the show" as a reflection of the entirety of DCI, whereas the G7 used that phrase only to describe the 7 as it applies to DCI. So, in the minds of the 7 they believe to save DCI (as in themselves because they believe that ‘they’ are DCI) all other WC corps are just necessary to serve them as warm-up type acts to ‘their’ DCI, and they see no need for the OC to warm-up the warm-up acts.

Added: That is why I contend that instead of deciding to split off from DCI into a G7 MiM activity they decided to take a run at making DCI just for the main support for the 7; because they truly believe that ‘they’ are the branding called DCI And that they truly believe, still to today, that is the way to save DCI.

Edited by Stu
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Thank you for articulating something none of us have been able to adequately describe previously. While I would not go so far as to jump to the conclusion in your last sentence, I think the preceding paragraphs hit upon an important underlying issue regarding "mission". After all, if DCI were nothing more than a "business", with no goal other than making money, there are far better ways to go about that than trying to squeeze a buck out of the drum corps activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCI is absolutely a business. In fact, I'd argue that it's PRIMARY purpose in life is to generate publicity and generate revenues to give to the competing organizations (originally just the 12 finalists, but now with a wider array of beneficiaries).

The fact that it's non-profit doesn't mean it's a charity. The NFL is non-profit too, and for the exact same reasons that DCI is; because it's structured to be the financial clearinghouse for the shared activities of its member organizations, doing what they can to create the biggest pool of dollars they can, then disbursing those monies to the member teams.

However I'd say the OP is on to the fundamental difference of opinion that now threatens the organization. You have some member orgs who seem to be content with the current situation, where things are never too hot, and never too cold, and others who see the potential for their league to become something bigger. FWIW, the ones who are in the 'growth' camp are being run by Boards and CEOs who have demonstrated an ability to expand their organizations' core businesses, while the most intransigent of the status quo folks seem resistant to changing anything about their organizations, so at least everyone's consistent.

But which group is which? Because from what I remember, in 2009 a 5-year business plan was formulated for growing DCI (more corps, more shows, more fans, etc.), agreed to with near unanimity, with at least part of the strategy and tactics coming from directors not in the G7. Shortly after that, the G7 got together and made their own proposal with numerous slides devoted to cutting costs, downsizing the DCI office, and reducing payouts to corps other than themselves. That is your "growth camp"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

SoundSport is a big idea.

The World Championship Prelims introduced in 2011, and the single scoring scale coming this year are big ideas. Those, combined with the strengthening we are seeing in the corps we currently refer to as "open class", could be steps toward growth of the DCI member corps community.

There were plenty of big ideas in the 2009 business plan, but those were put aside in the interest of reaching out to the G7. Instead, the big idea of TOC shows was pursued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SoundSport is a big idea.

Unless they get a funding mechanism for it, and create a real structure for the performances or judging, it'll likely be a footnote to WGI's Wind Division within ten years.

One of the two organizations has shown an ability to foster new participants, and it hasn't been DCI.

Edited by Slingerland
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that it's non-profit doesn't mean it's a charity. The NFL is non-profit too, and for the exact same reasons that DCI is; because it's structured to be the financial clearinghouse for the shared activities of its member organizations, doing what they can to create the biggest pool of dollars they can, then disbursing those monies to the member teams.

Dave Camp, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has begun circulating draft legislation that will change the Federal tax code in ways called "...the most dramatic since the 1986 TEFRA...". Many things affect high-income investors in this draft which is why I was studying it, but two things jump out that may affect drum corps.

First is Sec 5002 which characterizes "Name and logo royalties" as Unrelated Business Taxable Income for tax exempt orgs like DCI. This may change the tax nature of any income DCI receives in name or logo royalties to be default taxable, or per-se UBTI.

Second is Sec 5301, which states: "Under this provision, professional sports leagues would not be eligible for tax-exempt status as a trade or professional association under Code section 501©(6). The provision would not apply to amateur sports leagues, which would continue to qualify as tax-exempt entities. The provision would be effective for tax years beginning after 2014."

If DCI and the NFL do, in fact, enjoy tax-exempt status for the same reasons, this legislation would require sports leagues to attempt to gain tax-exempt status under another sub-definition of the 501© code - could it be a harbinger of what might be coming for DCI's status?

(disclaimer: I'm not a tax professional)

Edited by garfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...