Creative or highly effective funding mechanisms

[garfield]

1 hour ago, ouooga said:

 

Do none of those have corps halls? I really don't know. When I say corps hall, I literally mean a physical office space, but obviously this would still need to be a case by case basis depending on the corps.

Funny, corps halls are more warehouses and office space than practice facility.  Schools fill the practice hall role and storage/office space is cheap by comparison.

Colts and BK have each posted pics of their new corps offices and storage warehouses, but camps are almost always at a local school.

[garfield]

2 hours ago, ouooga said:

You and I have had our moments where I would bestow said badge on you as well. As long as we're not talking geography we're usually on the same page though. 

Whaaa?  Lil' Ol' me?  Why, I'm among the most lovable of personalities on these internets.  

Yea, OK, I'll wear the badge with honor.  And I'll remember that the honor of victory is only measured in the stoutness of your challenger.

And I'm glad to see you didn't take it personally, because I sure don't.

Apparently you're in a long and esteemed line of badge-carriers around here.

[Stu]

11 hours ago, garfield said:

Just goes to show that there is lots of talk about doing the hard, necessary work of funding drum corps, but very little actual experience with actual projects, successful or not.

Probably true that here, like in the actual drum corps world, there are lots of creative programming critiques and ideas but, sadly, very few ideas for actually funding them.

There's a reason why money is the usual culprit of a corps' downfall.

 

As we study the past creative funding ideas within DCI that produced great results, and see what they all have in common, it is likely a predictor of what it will take to foster the next great creative funding idea. From Star and their creative funding with an aircraft fueling depot to BD and their creative funding with BD Entertainment/System Blue, they all had up-front investment capital; and lots of it.  Sure, a small corps in XYZ Whatever State can implement some creativity when seeking funds, but without a Sugar Daddy investing a few million, or without years of competitive success behind them, even creativity will not produce Highly Effective Funding Mechanisms (which is the second part of this thread's title). Again there is no magic bullet aside from that investment capital.  So what we minions, and most of the rest of the successful top 12 WC corps, are left with apart from some rich person investing in creativity is smart hard work, seeking patrons, slugging it out for grants, and doing what is legal on small business ventures.

[Stu]

12 hours ago, MikeN said:

Stu - one thing that was also put forth in the G7 proposal was that DCI spent (at the time) a lot of money on services that could be handled just as well by operations run by drum corps and keep the money "in the family."  As an example, the G7 corps were using CrownTICKETS while DCI was using Ticketmaster.  (Now that we're years past this, it looks like that mostly resolved itself, but it was still an argument back then.)  That's an argument I'm firmly on the big corps' side on. 

Mike

MikeN - I just re-read the G7 Report so that I could respond with a fresh memory.  While it is true that the Report was seeking to keep services 'in house' that house was going to be owned by The Seven.  The Seven would have become the overwhelming voting power, they would in essence have became DCI, and of course after that when DCI used Crown Tickets for ticketing or BD Entertainment for bookings it would have 'stayed in the family'.  In a way I do not blame The Seven; their Directors were looking out for the best interest of their own corps which is their primary duty. The real culprit is the structure of DCI from its inception.  Why?  Because as it has been indicated on this site before, DCI 'is' the Directors of the voting members corps and they are also the Directors of DCI.  So when there is a conflict of interest, as in what is best for all corps butts heads with what is best for an individual corps, of course each corps Director will look out for their own corps.  Today, things on the surface may seem to be headed toward rectification, and there have been some good ideas implemented for DCI to look out for all corps within DCI, for example Sound Sport.  But I guarantee you the conflict of interest is still there underneath and the desire for the leadership from those Seven is still to benefit their own individual existence,  And the only way to eliminate that conflict is for DCI to become a separate body from the corps which is independently ran as a service provider to the member corps.  But since that change is not likely to ever happen there will, at some point in the future, be another conflict of interest in which the top corps will have to choose between what is best for DCI as a whole or what is best for their own corps.

Edited March 18, 2017 by Stu

[garfield]

On 3/18/2017 at 3:30 AM, Stu said:

MikeN - I just re-read the G7 Report so that I could respond with a fresh memory.  While it is true that the Report was seeking to keep services 'in house' that house was going to be owned by The Seven.  The Seven would have become the overwhelming voting power, they would in essence have became DCI, and of course after that when DCI used Crown Tickets for ticketing or BD Entertainment for bookings it would have 'stayed in the family'.  In a way I do not blame The Seven; their Directors were looking out for the best interest of their own corps which is their primary duty. The real culprit is the structure of DCI from its inception.  Why?  Because as it has been indicated on this site before, DCI 'is' the Directors of the voting members corps and they are also the Directors of DCI.  So when there is a conflict of interest, as in what is best for all corps butts heads with what is best for an individual corps, of course each corps Director will look out for their own corps.  Today, things on the surface may seem to be headed toward rectification, and there have been some good ideas implemented for DCI to look out for all corps within DCI, for example Sound Sport.  But I guarantee you the conflict of interest is still there underneath and the desire for the leadership from those Seven is still to benefit their own individual existence,  And the only way to eliminate that conflict is for DCI to become a separate body from the corps which is independently ran as a service provider to the member corps.  But since that change is not likely to ever happen there will, at some point in the future, be another conflict of interest in which the top corps will have to choose between what is best for DCI as a whole or what is best for their own corps.

I think this is all correct in your intent but is again an example of semantics being important.

First, one of the unanticipated consequences of the G7 event was a re-identification and strong reinforcement that the structure of DCI is pretty close to correct.  The issue that brought the Seven down was the legal reinforcement of the fiduciary responsibility imputed on the decision-makers and elected leaders according to the terminology of the By-Laws.  The conflict-of-interest you describe simply cannot, legally, exist among voted leaders because they must ONLY act for the benefit of the greater activity.  Edit: Interestingly, I have several times since those events recreated the circumstances where I can believe that those leaders actually believed the G7 changes would be good for all corps.  But it's hard, for sure, to make that stretch.

Second, a realization came to light that "The Directors" of those corps are NOT the required representative to DCI.  In fact, legally, because the corps director is employed at the will of his Board of Directors, it is, in fact, the Board of Directors that has the liability for its ED's actions.  For this reason, IMO, there has been an increased emphasis on formalized Board work in the decision-making processes of DCI (I'm intentionally not overstating this because change can be glacial).

Lastly, you may be correct about the inevitability of a future conflict but, presuming that the lessons learned by the 2010 events have lingered, it's also reasonable to hope that the actions taken in the opposite direction of the G7's destruction will likely delay, if not eliminate, that eventuality.  I personally see more constructive activity going on, although it may only be reflecting my own personal surroundings and involvement.

 

Edited March 20, 2017 by garfield
too darn many commas again

[Stu]

9 hours ago, garfield said:

I think this is all correct in your intent but, is again an example of semantics being important.

First, one of the unanticipated consequences of the G7 event was a re-identification and strong reinforcement that the structure of DCI is pretty close to correct.  The issue that brought the Seven down was the legal reinforcement of the fiduciary responsibility imputed on the decision-makers and elected leaders according to the terminology of the By-Laws.  The conflict-of-interest you describe simply cannot, legally, exist among voted leaders because they must ONLY act for the benefit of the greater activity.

Second, a realization came to light that "The Directors" of those corps are NOT the required representative to DCI.  In fact, legally, because the corps director is employed at the will of his Board of Directors, it is, in fact, the Board of Directors that has the liability for its ED's actions.  For this reason, IMO, there has been an increased emphasis on formalized Board work in the decision-making processes of DCI (I'm intentionally not overstating this because change can be glacial).

Lastly, you may be correct about the inevitability of a future conflict but, presuming that the lessons learned by the 2010 events have lingered, it's also reasonable to hope that the actions taken in the opposite direction of the G7's destruction will likely delay, if not eliminate, that eventuality.  I personally see more constructive activity going on, although it may only be reflecting my own personal surroundings and involvement.

 

You are correct in that semantics are important as well as that the Corps Directors on the DCI Board legally have to look out for the best interest of DCI.  If we look at the semantics of how the G7 Report was constructed it is full of justifications as to how 'The Seven' are what really makes up the importance of DCI; that 'The Seven' are why the audience buys tickets; that 'The Seven' pulls in the most DCI revenue through ticket and souvenir sales; that the other WC corps actually ride on the coat-tails of 'The Seven'; that the OC was draining revenue from 'The Seven'; and that that due to those reasons the By-Laws should be changed so that 'The Seven' would have the most DCI voting power.  Thus if it was implemented, by definition 'The Seven' would have become what would actually constitute the New DCI, and whatever they voted on thereafter to help just 'The Seven' therefore would not have been in conflict with the newly defined DCI.  Yes, semantics sure are important!!

Edited March 18, 2017 by Stu

[BRASSO]

On ‎3‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 5:36 PM, Stu said:

You are correct in that semantics are important as well as that the Corps Directors on the DCI Board legally have to look out for the best interest of DCI.  If we look at the semantics of how the G7 Report was constructed it is full of justifications as to how 'The Seven' are what really makes up the importance of DCI; that  that the other WC corps actually ride on the coat-tails of 'The Seven';   Yes, semantics sure are important!!

  I could spend paragraphs discussing why not only is your assessment is wrong but that DCI itself, by vote of the majority of its Corps itself, does NOT share your assessment of this.... at all. But I am not interested in revisiting the G7 scheme and its potential harm to DCI, as it is totally beyond the scope of this OP's topic. So that's that, and we move on, as the G7 proposals, almost in its entirety ( except for the TOC concept, which too was altered from its original proposal), was defeated in an overwhelming vote of rejection as a series of proposals ( or some characterize as the G7's  non negotiable ultimatum ) by DCI itself. At that point of defeat of their proposals, the G7 were afforded the opportunity to leave DCI and put into practice the very things they told us they were fully capable of doing. But they changed their tune, and the G7 decided it needed the other Corps afterall in order to financially function,and so the G7 concept died a merciful death... but it taught the other non G7 Corps to be eternally vigilant with a handful of Corps Directors who say one thing publically, but are working behind closed doors in secrecy to plot out things that are completely at odds with their public statements and in violation of the DCI By Laws upon which they took a solemn oath. Eternal Vigilance now is required by the other Corps with these handful. That is the helpful lesson leaned in this deplorable, sorry saga, imo. But that was 2010... and so we move on from this now, in hopes of a more open, more transparent, more respectful, more collegial environment among all the DCI membership Corps in the coming years.

Edited March 20, 2017 by BRASSO

[garfield]

1 hour ago, BRASSO said:

  I could spend paragraphs discussing why not only is your assessment is wrong but that DCI itself, by vote of the majority of its Corps itself, does NOT share your assessment of this.... at all. But I am not interested in revisiting the G7 scheme and its potential harm to DCI, as it is totally beyond the scope of this OP's topic. So that's that, and we move on, as the G7 proposals, almost in its entirety ( except for the TOC concept, which too was altered from its original proposal), was defeated in an overwhelming vote of rejection as a series of proposals ( or some characterize as the G7's  non negotiable ultimatum ) by DCI itself. At that point of defeat of their proposals, the G7 were afforded the opportunity to leave DCI and put into practice the very things they told us they were fully capable of doing. But they changed their tune, and the G7 decided it needed the other Corps afterall in order to financially function,and so the G7 concept died a merciful death... but it taught the other non G7 Corps to be eternally vigilant with a handful of Corps Directors who say one thing publically, but are working behind closed doors in secrecy to plot out things that are completely at odds with their public statements and in violation of the DCI By Laws upon which they took a solemn oath. Eternal Vigilance now is required by the other Corps with these handful. That is the helpful lesson leaned in this deplorable, sorry saga, imo. But that was 2010... and so we move on from this now, in hopes of a more open, more transparent, more respectful, more collegial environment among all the DCI membership Corps in the coming years.

Had to chuckle that you didn't want to discuss it, then went on to type a whole bunch more about it.  Come on, admit it!  You can't NOT "revisit" the scheme, amiright?

I don't know were you get the information that votes were taken on a "series of proposals" in the G7 scheme, but that's not what I understand took place.  Instead of placing their fates in the hands of vigilance, the general membership fell back on support from a legal interpretation of the By-Laws to answer if the actions being considered by the voting membership were in the best interest of the overall activity.  Because it was determined that they were not, and because the proposal belonged largely to the voting members, it was determined that legally removing the voting members and replacing them was the most secure way to prevent said actions from being voted on in a vacuum.

The Seven were never "afforded the opportunity" by the new voting members; they always had that option and chose to not take it, although I can't verity the reasons you cite for them doing so.

The clarity of the legal interpretation and of the tools available to defend it gave member corps the confidence to vote back into voting membership members of the Seven.  While you may be correct to some degree that corps directors are vigilant, I see much more cooperation, collaboration, teamwork, and sharing than I ever have, even while I admit that it may be only because of my viewpoint as an active volunteer.

 

[BRASSO]

16 minutes ago, garfield said:

Had to chuckle that you didn't want to discuss it, then went on to type a whole bunch more about it.  Come on, admit it!  You can't NOT "revisit" the scheme, amiright?

I don't know were you get the information that votes were taken on a "series of proposals" in the G7 scheme, but that's not what I understand took place.  Instead of placing their fates in the hands of vigilance, the general membership fell back on support from a legal interpretation of the By-Laws to answer if the actions being considered by the voting membership were in the best interest of the overall activity.  Because it was determined that they were not, and because the proposal belonged largely to the voting members, it was determined that legally removing the voting members and replacing them was the most secure way to prevent said actions from being voted on in a vacuum.

The Seven were never "afforded the opportunity" by the new voting members; they always had that option and chose to not take it, although I can't verity the reasons you cite for them doing so.

The clarity of the legal interpretation and of the tools available to defend it gave member corps the confidence to vote back into voting membership members of the Seven.  While you may be correct to some degree that corps directors are vigilant, I see much more cooperation, collaboration, teamwork, and sharing than I ever have, even while I admit that it may be only because of my viewpoint as an active volunteer.

 

 Look, I did not bring up the G7 on this thread. I responded to it, and suggested we ( my words ) " move on " from it. That suggestion, even after your lengthy reply here, still holds true as my suggestion. Whether or not my suggestion here that we move on from further airing of the G7 scheme and/ or its aftermath only time will tell if posters will adhere to my  suggestion... a suggestion that really is beyond my control on here.

Edited March 20, 2017 by BRASSO

[garfield]

If it is true that, the larger a corps becomes the less they draw on their local geography, it seems also true then that creative fundraisers that require significant volunteers would be difficult to attempt during the off-season (and, of course, during the season, MM's and volunteers are busy training).

If those two premises are true, then, it would appear that smaller, more geographically local orgs would do better at fundraisers that require man/woman power.

Car washes, bake sales, and other community fundraisers are all tougher if most of your members come from out of town, right?

 

Edited March 20, 2017 by garfield
too darn many commas