Creative or highly effective funding mechanisms

[Stu]

41 minutes ago, ouooga said:

Wait, what happened with BD and Spartans? Was it those two corps specifically, or is that a generalization of something bigger? I'm curious to learn more about what was actually proposed and when.

In 2010, claiming that they were 'the only real show' within DCI, the leadership of BD and the Cadets authored a proposal which was also backed by the leadership of Santa Clara, The Cavaliers, Bluecoats, Crown, and Phantom Regiment. In that proposal they placed themselves in a premier-corps category status, placed themselves as the only seven corps which should have the majority of votes, they stated that they should collect the majority of revenue generated by DCI, they placed all other WC corps in a second-class DCI status, and they proposed eliminating all DCI support whatsoever for the OC (ie Spartans et al),   It was self-titled as the G7 Report and there are threads on here devoted to the subject.  Brasso said that the Spartans are a corps which does quite well at funding on the level they are at.  My point to Brasso is that if it is so uncomplicated to raise funds why did BD find it necessary to yank all of the DCI support from the Open Class to foster their own BD agenda?

Edited March 13, 2017 by Stu

[garfield]

3 hours ago, Stu said:

In 2010, claiming that they were 'the only real show' within DCI, the leadership of BD and the Cadets authored a proposal which was also backed by the leadership of Santa Clara, The Cavaliers, Bluecoats, Crown, and Phantom Regiment. In that proposal they placed themselves in a premier-corps category status, placed themselves as the only seven corps which should have the majority of votes, they stated that they should collect the majority of revenue generated by DCI, they placed all other WC corps in a second-class DCI status, and they proposed eliminating all DCI support whatsoever for the OC (ie Spartans et al),   It was self-titled as the G7 Report and there are threads on here devoted to the subject.  Brasso said that the Spartans are a corps which does quite well at funding on the level they are at.  My point to Brasso is that if it is so uncomplicated to raise funds why did BD find it necessary to yank all of the DCI support from the Open Class to foster their own BD agenda?

First, I think it's worth being careful with semantics here.  While it's true that BD was part of the G7 list of corps, their work as part of the plan was, specifically, dealing with the "reconstruction".  It was Hop's portion of the plan that tore down the structure.  If one looks at just the "reconstruction" part of the plan, including the formation of a new non-profit to host the group's efforts, it was not horrible in and of itself.  That said, I'm not convinced that all members of the group were aware of what was to be finally presented and, therefore, I'm not willing to hold all G7 corps responsible for the slash-and-burn part of the plan that was so destructive.

Also, I think it's possible that a primary reason the corps' signed on to the plan was because of a level of frustration that corps far down the food chain (not Spartans specifically) were not doing the "easy" (paraphrase of Brasso's contention) work of growing their programs by being smarter about funding themselves.  Because of a seeming unwillingness to "do what's necessary to grow", I can understand the frustration even as I disagree with the actions based on it.

I've also learned that the level of frustration was heightened in the G7 corps because of a feeling that their freely-offered advice on such topics was ignored or, worse, dismissed because "...well, that's BD and it's "easy" for them...".

I'm not carrying the G7 water, but it is reasonable to, at least, understand their position even while disagreeing with it.

The fact is that it's not ever easy to find funding, which is the reason, I suspect, why this thread was started.

I'm glad to see some actual thought being put to the subject here.

 

Edited March 13, 2017 by garfield

[ouooga]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

In 2010, claiming that they were 'the only real show' within DCI, the leadership of BD and the Cadets authored a proposal which was also backed by the leadership of Santa Clara, The Cavaliers, Bluecoats, Crown, and Phantom Regiment. In that proposal they placed themselves in a premier-corps category status, placed themselves as the only seven corps which should have the majority of votes, they stated that they should collect the majority of revenue generated by DCI, they placed all other WC corps in a second-class DCI status, and they proposed eliminating all DCI support whatsoever for the OC (ie Spartans et al),   It was self-titled as the G7 Report and there are threads on here devoted to the subject.  Brasso said that the Spartans are a corps which does quite well at funding on the level they are at.  My point to Brasso is that if it is so uncomplicated to raise funds why did BD find it necessary to yank all of the DCI support from the Open Class to foster their own BD agenda?

 

Ok, we're talking about G7. I'm familiar with that. Just thought, based on the original post, that only BD said that they should take only Spartans' money, and I wanted to make sure that wasn't the case.

To the point of the G7, they sell out the house. I love drum corps, all drum corps, and support the activity wholeheartedly, but the top corps definitely keep the rest of the activity afloat from a ticket sales standpoint. To think that Local-Band-X as the opening act deserves as much money as the Rolling Stones is a bit extreme, even if the Rolling Stones already have a better funding model in place. Assuming someone (Rolling Stones, BD) isn't profitable because you have evidence they tried to be more profitable through other means is a leap that usually doesn't pan out.

[ouooga]

45 minutes ago, garfield said:

The fact is that it's not ever easy to find funding, which is the reason, I suspect, why this thread was started.

This statement right here sums up the entire struggle any NPO in the modern age faces, drum corps especially. Finding funding is a model that is fading. But money is still being spent, predominantly in exchange for goods and services. Money is being spent on things of value to consumers. Once NPOs accept this as a fundamental change tho their funding models, then it's just a matter of "how do we make money", which a lot of businesses do just fine at.

 

Making money > Finding money. 

[Stu]

2 hours ago, garfield said:

First, I think it's worth being careful with semantics here.  While it's true that BD was part of the G7 list of corps, their work as part of the plan was, specifically, dealing with the "reconstruction".  It was Hop's portion of the plan that tore down the structure.  If one looks at just the "reconstruction" part of the plan, including the formation of a new non-profit to host the group's efforts, it was not horrible in and of itself.  That said, I'm not convinced that all members of the group were aware of what was to be finally presented and, therefore, I'm not willing to hold all G7 corps responsible for the slash-and-burn part of the plan that was so destructive.

Also, I think it's possible that a primary reason the corps' signed on to the plan was because of a level of frustration that corps far down the food chain (not Spartans specifically) were not doing the "easy" (paraphrase of Brasso's contention) work of growing their programs by being smarter about funding themselves.  Because of a seeming unwillingness to "do what's necessary to grow", I can understand the frustration even as I disagree with the actions based on it.

I've also learned that the level of frustration was heightened in the G7 corps because of a feeling that their freely-offered advice on such topics was ignored or, worse, dismissed because "...well, that's BD and it's "easy" for them...".

I'm not carrying the G7 water, but it is reasonable to, at least, understand their position even while disagreeing with it.

The fact is that it's not ever easy to find funding, which is the reason, I suspect, why this thread was started.

I'm glad to see some actual thought being put to the subject here.

 

Ever since I joined DCP I have most often agreed with your postings and I have high respect for your opinions. On this one, though, I will counter:

1) To say that BD (as a co-author) should be dismissed and separated from The Cadets (the other co-author) would be like stating that Fredrich Engels should be dismissed and separated as co-author on the book he collaborated on with Karl Marx.  Once a person collaborates with another as a co-author, they both stand or fall together.  BD owns that entire document along with the others who were on board.

2) The leadership of Santa Clara publicly defended the proposal out in the open as the front-man.  The leadership of the other four signed on and backed the plan.  Here are the options for their involvement: a) Incompetent on supporting it without understanding the proposal, b) Obtuse and Compliant, or c) Outright Supportive.  Which one of those excuses them from their backing of the proposal.

3) The way advice was transmitted to other corps, which caused the frustration prior to the G7 proposal, was akin to the advice presented here in the opening postings by Brasso.  Flippant, Snarky, and it is Easy and Uncomplicated for us; and when confronted with that presentation as being holier-than-thou (because it is easier to raise millions when you already have millions to pay professional development people as opposed to scratching in the dirt for volunteers) the response was also akin to the Brasso later postings of Drop Dead, Go Away, You are Boring,  etc...

So yeah; I understand their position.  It was a unified front, co-authored by two, publicly fronted by one, and signed by four others; and I disagree with the proposal.

[BRASSO]

 So there is no misconceptions here, some of the Open Class corps are far more efficiently run that some of the World Class Division Corps are. Some of the Open Class Corps have lasted so much longer than dozens and dozens of World Class Divisions Corps that flamed out because they bit off more than they could chew, and a result folded as they could not financially sustain themselves at the World Class Division fundraising levels that they aspired too. Reading a few of the comments here the last 48 hours however, would have one think that the World Class Division Corps ( such as the G7 ) ) are the only models that need to be adopted for long term financial fund raising sustainability. While true in a few cases, some World Class Division Corps are.. right now... in far more precarious financial condition than several of the Open Class Corps find themselves in. Several of the Open Class Corps have been in relatively healthy financial shape for years, and in some cases, for over 60 years, as a matter of fact. As a result, more marchers over the years have come thru the ranks of the Nashua Spartans than ( for example ) the Bridgemen, 27th Lancers, Star of Indiana combined. We should keep in mind that this thread is not about competitive excellence. This thread is about financial sustainability,( novel and the conventional ) and what works in fundraising to attain one's long term sustainability and longevity in the activity, and what works best  with that Corps chosen Mission Statement that serve its many marchers that comes thru its ranks. To that extent then , despite protestations to those unaware ( like Stu.. haha!), the Nashua Spartans ( for just one example ) conventional Fund Raising methods the last 60 years was not an " extremely convoluted process" in the least.. nor " highly complicated " at all either. The easy to understand sweat equity methods were literally passed down from Father to Sons ( and other family members ),  and only marginally changed over the years as a  successful blueprint, and were ( and are ) utilized efficiently for over half a century to efficiently run and long term sustain their Corps. Is this a model for others to pursue however ? Not necessarily. It all mostly depends upon what a Corps ( or Soundsport unit ) aspires to, and whether or not the methods of Fund Raising best serve those needs, and its Corps/ unit  Mission Statement long range.
 

Edited March 13, 2017 by BRASSO

[Stu]

38 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

 So there is no misconceptions here, some of the Open Class corps are far more efficiently run that some of the World Class Division Corps are. Some of the Open Class Corps have lasted so much longer than dozens and dozens of World Class Divisions Corps that flamed out because they bit off more than they could chew, and a result folded as they could not financially sustain themselves at the World Class Division fundraising levels that they aspired too. Reading a few of the comments here the last 48 hours however, would have one think that the World Class Division Corps ( such as the G7 ) ) are the only models that need to be adopted for long term financial fund raising sustainability. While true in a few cases, some World Class Division Corps are.. right now... in more precarious financial condition than several of the Open Class Corps find themselves in. Several of the Open Class Corps have been in relatively healthy financial shape for years, and in some cases, for over 60 years, as a matter of fact. As a result, more marchers over the years have come thru the ranks of the Nashua Spartans than ( for example ) the Bridgemen, 27th Lancers, Star of Indiana combined. We should keep in mind that this thread is not about competitive excellence. This thread is about financial sustainability,( novel and the conventional ) and what works in fundraising to attain one's long term sustainability and longevity in the activity, and what works best  with that Corps chosen Mission Statement that it develops for itself to attain that goal and that longevity, and serve its many marchers that comes thru its ranks. To that extent then , despite protestations to those unaware ( like Stu.. haha!), the Nashua Spartans ( for just one example ) conventional Fund Raising methods the last 60 years was not an " extremely convoluted process" in the least.. nor " highly complicated " at all either. The easy to understand sweat equity methods were literally passed down from Father to Sons ( and other family members ),  andonly marginally changed over the years as a  successful blueprint, and were ( and are ) utilized efficiently for over half a century to run their Corps. Is this a model for others to pursue however ? Not necessarily. It all mostly depends upon what a Corps ( or Soundsport unit ) aspires to, and whether or not the methods of Fund Raising best serve those needs, and its Corps/ unit  Mission Statement long range.
 

You still have not addressed as to why BD found it necessary to propose taking all DCI Revenue and Support away from the Nashua Spartans, and other successful DCI OC Corps, in order to further their own BD agenda.

[BRASSO]

27 minutes ago, Stu said:

You still have not addressed as to why BD found it necessary to propose taking all DCI Revenue and Support away from the Nashua Spartans, and other successful DCI OC Corps, in order to further their own BD agenda.

 You still have not addressed why you" snarkily" told readers above that I was seriously suggesting that Corps need to " rob banks " as novel method of fund raising either.. lol!.  Besides I don't ask you ( or other posters ) to respond to every comment I post on here. So if I elect to bypass your comment, or bypass responding to you directly, I have elected to do so, as it does not interest me to desire to respond to you on something or other you've said on here.... lol!

Edited March 13, 2017 by BRASSO

[Liahona]

5 hours ago, garfield said:

  That said, I'm not convinced that all members of the group were aware of what was to be finally presented and, therefore, I'm not willing to hold all G7 corps responsible for the slash-and-burn part of the plan that was so destructive.

Sorry...but there were press releases from all these corps supporting the proposal in solidarity...You are trying to re-write history IMO..

[ouooga]

55 minutes ago, Stu said:

You still have not addressed as to why BD found it necessary to propose taking all DCI Revenue and Support away from the Nashua Spartans, and other successful DCI OC Corps, in order to further their own BD agenda.

I think I missed something. You using those exact two corps for this and using that exact wording (ie. BD agenda), are you quoting something someone else said that I'm not seeing, or trying to take a macro argument and refine to it a micro level for a different, personal reason?