GUARDLING Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 I am using narcissistic in the technical definition used by psychologists, mental health professionals, and cousellors: the self experience as the basis of all judgment. This is not the same as selfishness, which is a preference for self before others. narcissistic is opposed to the dependent personality which bases one's judgment on what others think/observe as more important/correct than what I judge/observe. the dependent person is rarely selfless in an altruistic meaning but rather cowardly and with out confidence to make one's own judgment. That is all. I gottcha ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 I did a study back in the teeth of the financial crash that compared finals attendance to US GDP. (Someone more adept with the Search function could probably find it.) Some posters here were contending at the time that attendance and GDP were linked, but the data showed no correlation, at best from 1995 to 2007. Here are those finals attendance numbers for each of those years: '95 - 19,100 '96 - 13,771 '97 - 13,773 '98 - 12,693 '99 - 19,931 '00 - 18,423 '01 - 16,406 '02 - 20,230 '03 - 18,865 '04 - 22,047 '05 - 20,542 '06 - 21,232 '07 - 24,309 Somewhere after that, I think 2010 or '11, DCI began releasing seasonal and combined finals week attendance. From THIS thread we find: '12 - 36,494 '13 - 37,461 '14 - 39,076 Someone else may be able to fill in the missing four years but, even as separate data sets, the "...more downs than ups..." implication that attendance is lower over the last 15 to 20 years in quite inaccurate. When I said "attendance", I meant overall attendance, not just finals or championship week. Is there an argument that attendance would be even higher had DCI not implemented all the changes? I am pretty sure the claim has been made here before. Sure, I suppose, but how do you prove that presumption? If anyone could "prove" that absolutely, they could also have taken that proof to DCI back in 1999 and stopped the changes in the first place. But that is not how the real world works. Even in hindsight, we do not normally have the luxury of isolating one variable from all the rest and obtaining absolute "proof" that correlation = causation. Decisions must still be made, though, so we (hopefully) use our best instincts and our best data to guide us. I am sure you know this, in your line of work. So no, I am not aiming to "prove" what you say. There is a correlation, though. There is also the common-sense premise that making lots of changes to your product might cause you to lose some existing customers. We had customers saying just that as these changes came - some of them are now former customers. None of this should be catching anyone by surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) When I said "attendance", I meant overall attendance, not just finals or championship week. I am pretty sure the claim has been made here before. If anyone could "prove" that absolutely, they could also have taken that proof to DCI back in 1999 and stopped the changes in the first place. But that is not how the real world works. Even in hindsight, we do not normally have the luxury of isolating one variable from all the rest and obtaining absolute "proof" that correlation = causation. Decisions must still be made, though, so we (hopefully) use our best instincts and our best data to guide us. I am sure you know this, in your line of work. So no, I am not aiming to "prove" what you say. There is a correlation, though. There is also the common-sense premise that making lots of changes to your product might cause you to lose some existing customers. We had customers saying just that as these changes came - some of them are now former customers. None of this should be catching anyone by surprise. Well, isn't a bit convenient to now add a qualifier to your statement? And are there such stats kept that would tell us overall annual attendance? The closest I've seen is the (seemingly unchanging) general statement on DCI's website that "...over xx-thousand have experienced drum corps shows..." (paraphrasing). The initial post that drew my participation in this thread was that A&E and other changes implemented by DCI "...ruin it..." for many fans. My counter wasthat attendance numbers don't back up the claim that the activity is "ruined" for fans. Then came the implication that the changes have prompted many fans to leave and that, without the changes, attendance would be higher - a non-provable point. While you insist that "common sense" would prompt us to believe that the changes have motivated some (many?) to leave the activity, that same common sense would suggest that those same changes have attracted or retained as many as have left, and that attendance numbers seem to back up the notion that more people are watching DCI than have left it. Revisionist, unprovable historical theory might also suggest that DCI would have died had the changes not been implemented. (None of which is a confirmation or contention regarding my own, personal beliefs about the changes.) Edited October 27, 2014 by garfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted October 27, 2014 Author Share Posted October 27, 2014 Therefore, let us talk about what we do know: A&E is exciting to some, discordant to others. There is no evidence that A&E's trial period will cause it to be discarded from future DCI use. While some see this as unpleasant and others view it a preference, is there a happy medium or a level of use which be mutually acceptable? How? Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Well, isn't a bit convenient to now add a qualifier to your statement? I have no idea what you refer to there. What statement did I make that you think I am walking back? And are there such stats kept that would tell us overall annual attendance? The closest I've seen is the (seemingly unchanging) general statement on DCI's website that "...over xx-thousand have experienced drum corps shows..." (paraphrasing). If limited to what information is publicly available, it takes a careful look. For instance, the attendance data recently released for 2014 tells us that "More than 320,000 spectators headed to more than 100 live events on the 53-day DCI Summer Tour". I do not know whether that number reflects paid attendance, or overall. We have an overall number for 2007. ""Total combined live attendance (paid audience, VIP guests, corps members, media, and others) is estimated at more than 400,000 as Drum Corps International went coast-to-coast during the 2007 season". In 2006, DCI published a paid attendance number. "Total paid attendance for all events is estimated at more than 360,000." Either way, it is clear that attendance today is lower than 7-8 years ago. The initial post that drew my participation in this thread was that A&E and other changes implemented by DCI "...ruin it..." for many fans. My counter was that attendance numbers don't back up the claim that the activity is "ruined" for fans. Actually, your response cited the average age and average tenure of a "fan". You made no reference to attendance. Then came the implication that the changes have prompted many fans to leave and that, without the changes, attendance would be higher - a non-provable point. While you insist that "common sense" would prompt us to believe that the changes have motivated some (many?) to leave the activity, that same common sense would suggest that those same changes have attracted or retained as many as have left, and that attendance numbers seem to back up the notion that more people are watching DCI than have left it. But decreasing attendance numbers do not support your contention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I have no idea what you refer to there. What statement did I make that you think I am walking back? If limited to what information is publicly available, it takes a careful look. For instance, the attendance data recently released for 2014 tells us that "More than 320,000 spectators headed to more than 100 live events on the 53-day DCI Summer Tour". I do not know whether that number reflects paid attendance, or overall. We have an overall number for 2007. ""Total combined live attendance (paid audience, VIP guests, corps members, media, and others) is estimated at more than 400,000 as Drum Corps International went coast-to-coast during the 2007 season". In 2006, DCI published a paid attendance number. "Total paid attendance for all events is estimated at more than 360,000." Either way, it is clear that attendance today is lower than 7-8 years ago. IDK; without knowing how many events there were in in 2014 vs 2007 or 2006 I don't think your conclusion is clear at all. Not to mention that verbiage is a bit inconsistent, with that 400k number counting media & corps members while it is unknown what 2014 and 2006 included. Not to mention that these press releases are obviously not scientific or super accurate. As usual, there are a myriad of circumstances and to try to cram them into a neat/tidy conclusion to support an argument for/against design choices is not logical. If I looked at 2014 record sales and saw that no album released in 2014 will be certified platinum, and then said no album released in 2014 is very good, it would be a ludicrous argument at best. Whittling down attendance as a means of justifying or damning electronics is just as crazy (and unfounded) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 IDK; without knowing how many events there were in in 2014 vs 2007 or 2006 I don't think your conclusion is clear at all. My conclusion was that total attendance is down from 2006-2007 levels. That is all I concluded, and I think it is clear. I said nothing more about what that means (yet), but since you mentioned number of events... I would expect that if total attendance is down, number of events is probably also down. Supply adjusts to demand. Not to mention that verbiage is a bit inconsistent, with that 400k number counting media & corps members while it is unknown what 2014 and 2006 included. We know 2006 was a total paid attendance count. They said "total paid attendance for all events". Not to mention that these press releases are obviously not scientific or super accurate. Well, if you want to speculate... maybe DCI is lying to us. Maybe space aliens are among us, taking the shape of DCI office staff and manipulating attendance data. Drawing any conclusions from this information is risky, given these alternative explanations. As usual, there are a myriad of circumstances and to try to cram them into a neat/tidy conclusion to support an argument for/against design choices is not logical. If I looked at 2014 record sales and saw that no album released in 2014 will be certified platinum, and then said no album released in 2014 is very good, it would be a ludicrous argument at best. Whittling down attendance as a means of justifying or damning electronics is just as crazy (and unfounded) This was a lot of effort to refute an assertion I did not make. Someone asked me specifically about attendance data, and I answered. I drew no conclusions from that regarding design choices, or electronics - those are your words. I am well aware that we cannot isolate any one of the factors that influence attendance - I said as much a couple of posts ago. Worse yet, you have allowed others to ignore the myriad of circumstances and draw a neat/tidy conclusion to support their arguments. Why the double standard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 thank you DCP :-) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) thank you DCP :-) Corpsband you ignorant slut I think your* mistaken: there is not enough data correlated to form a true opinion (yes, I misspelled "you're" wrong because INTERNET) Edited October 28, 2014 by perc2100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) When I said "attendance", I meant overall attendance, not just finals or championship week. I am pretty sure the claim has been made here before. If anyone could "prove" that absolutely, they could also have taken that proof to DCI back in 1999 and stopped the changes in the first place. But that is not how the real world works. Even in hindsight, we do not normally have the luxury of isolating one variable from all the rest and obtaining absolute "proof" that correlation = causation. Decisions must still be made, though, so we (hopefully) use our best instincts and our best data to guide us. I am sure you know this, in your line of work. So no, I am not aiming to "prove" what you say. There is a correlation, though. There is also the common-sense premise that making lots of changes to your product might cause you to lose some existing customers. We had customers saying just that as these changes came - some of them are now former customers. None of this should be catching anyone by surprise. This is an excellent post. Lots for me to agree with regarding correlation and "proof" (you're right - especially in my business). And I think it exposes how this conversation began to run away with itself. The original contention (not yours) that A&E, blah, blah "ruin it" for many existing fans. I called B.S. on present tense grounds that the current fan base is not "ruined" by A&E; they've never heard anything else. Then I made a comment about attendance being flat and you, correctly, called me on it (I was at work and didn't have my data). Upon me asking, you stated that you understood attendance to be more downs than ups, and improving recently. I think your evidence is weak and that, in fact, attendance is up...blah, blah, blah. My evidence is annual reports and my own research. I don't know where your data comes from. I don't think it matters because of the very last lines of your post above. None of it can be proven. We can make correlations to attendance whether we use your numbers or mine (mine are better ) but we'll never be able to prove what caused attendance to decline or increase. And the fact that DCI changed reporting methods in the middle doesn't help. But, I think that to even have the discussion about A&E and the other changes, we should at least agree that the impact is, or is not, fewer paying fans in the stands. Let's start by agreeing on the data we're going to call evidence. I think it's up. You think it's down. Let's figure out which is correct by agreeing which data we're going to use, and argue from there. I've shown you mine, I don't know where you've gotten yours. Your show me yours and I'll show you mine. Edited October 28, 2014 by garfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts