Weaklefthand4ever Posted April 7, 2019 Share Posted April 7, 2019 26 minutes ago, garfield said: I'm going to wait to reply until weaklefthand4eva responds. (And BTW, the single best screen name for any old drummer) LOL. Thanks! I remember a certain caption head at CV messaging me on here in '03 or '04 and saying "Weaklefthand4ever huh? Well, we'll see about that at next camp." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted April 7, 2019 Share Posted April 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, Weaklefthand4ever said: LOL. Thanks! I remember a certain caption head at CV messaging me on here in '03 or '04 and saying "Weaklefthand4ever huh? Well, we'll see about that at next camp." I got it immediately and will suffer it until the grave. It's a kinship we all eventually share. Now, I have to make a dog groomer/Lowes run, but I think the topic is pertinent for you to debate without me: There is new from corps and there is news from DCI. Let's say there's a HUGE wall between the two. DCI's two responsibilities are to run the tour and promote the activity. Everything else is to come from the corps. Where does one place the big wall of demarkation between them in their roles and duties to public PR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weaklefthand4ever Posted April 7, 2019 Share Posted April 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, garfield said: There is new from corps and there is news from DCI. Let's say there's a HUGE wall between the two. DCI's two responsibilities are to run the tour and promote the activity. Everything else is to come from the corps. Where does one place the big wall of demarkation between them in their roles and duties to public PR? And that, at least from my narrowly focused personal view may be the biggest gap. In a perfect world, the responsibility of DCI to promote the activity should be in lock step with the member corps and their responsibility to share and promote DCI's policies. The member corps should always be referencing back to DCI to say "In accordance with DCI's policy to promote (insert safety or whatever policy it may be,) and in an effort to support DCI's initiative, we have enacted the following." DCI should then be open and honest about promoting the fact that corps are following the policies for the betterment of the activity as a whole and if a corps builds a policy that makes sense for the activity at large, it should be giving open credit for the idea. That is probably idealistic and perhaps not even reasonable given the current relationship. But it's a wish. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barneveld Posted April 7, 2019 Share Posted April 7, 2019 49 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said: I think we got it.... 😀 And I hope DCI is looking for ways to spread the good news other than website only. My biggest worry with the new policy is not reviewing it annually to look for shortcomings that come up or society changes. Will have to check the website for any latest I agree with the above emphasized quote, not for people like Jim, garfield, myself, etc. but more for the casual fan or someone who isn't a fan. They are the ones who read the original article (s), most likely form a negative opinion/perception (rightly or wrongly), and not invested/interested enough to follow up. It's important that they hear that things are changing/improving. And if they're casual fans or not fans, spreading the news other ways, in addition to the website, is important. They could be people who very possibly make the decision on hosting a corps or having a show. They could be people who "put pressure" on the decision makers to host or not host, etc. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted April 7, 2019 Share Posted April 7, 2019 (edited) If DCI really does improve marcher safety in the coming months and years, they won't need any PR, nor website to engage in PR re.their" improvements", nor Press Release " statements on improvements ".The improvement itself is what is needed, and the rest ( PR, Websites, DCI Press Releases, etc ) will take care of itself. If DCI only gives lip service however to improved marcher safety, then no amount of positive spin, nor positive press releases, nor website improvements, etc will save them from an embarrassing repeat of the last 12 months in one form or another again, imo. Edited April 7, 2019 by BRASSO 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted April 7, 2019 Share Posted April 7, 2019 20 minutes ago, Barneveld said: I agree with the above emphasized quote, not for people like Jim, garfield, myself, etc. but more for the casual fan or someone who isn't a fan. They are the ones who read the original article (s), most likely form a negative opinion/perception (rightly or wrongly), and not invested/interested enough to follow up. It's important that they hear that things are changing/improving. And if they're casual fans or not fans, spreading the news other ways, in addition to the website, is important. They could be people who very possibly make the decision on hosting a corps or having a show. They could be people who "put pressure" on the decision makers to host or not host, etc. And that's the target audience I was thinking of originally thank you 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weaklefthand4ever Posted April 7, 2019 Share Posted April 7, 2019 27 minutes ago, BRASSO said: If DCI really does improve marcher safety in the coming months and years, they won't need any PR, nor website to engage in PR re.their" improvements", nor Press Release " statements on improvements ".The improvement itself is what is needed, and the rest ( PR, Websites, DCI Press Releases, etc ) will take care of itself. If DCI only gives lip service however to improved marcher safety, then no amount of positive spin, nor positive press releases, nor website improvements, etc will save them from an embarrassing repeat of the last 12 months in one form or another again, imo. I think you're very much correct in several points. Yes, if the improvement is made, then at the very least, we will not hear negative news (which would be a big improvement after the past year.) The improvement itself is indeed what is needed as you stated and words without action mean less than nothing. I do, however, feel that good press which is deserved is never a bad thing. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted April 7, 2019 Share Posted April 7, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, BRASSO said: If DCI really does improve marcher safety in the coming months and years, they won't need any PR, nor website to engage in PR re.their" improvements", nor Press Release " statements on improvements ".The improvement itself is what is needed, and the rest ( PR, Websites, DCI Press Releases, etc ) will take care of itself. If DCI only gives lip service however to improved marcher safety, then no amount of positive spin, nor positive press releases, nor website improvements, etc will save them from an embarrassing repeat of the last 12 months in one form or another again, imo. So, I'm confused then. If what you say is true (and I believe it largely is), then does DCI need to spend money on PR to announce the improvements, or not? And, if yes, and with the recognition that all dollars not spent on PR would likely be paid out to the corps to print their own PR, how much $ should DCI hold back from the corps to pay for the PR campaign? After all, why is BD (for example), who has no issues made public about this subject, required to give up some payout just to repair damage they didn't cause? (I'm not being rhetorical.) Edited April 7, 2019 by garfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted April 7, 2019 Share Posted April 7, 2019 (edited) 38 minutes ago, garfield said: So, I'm confused then. If what you say is true (and I believe it largely is), then does DCI need to spend money on PR to announce the improvements, or not? And, if yes, and with the recognition that all dollars not spent on PR would likely be paid out to the corps to print their own PR, how much $ should DCI hold back from the corps to pay for the PR campaign? After all, why is BD (for example), who has no issues made public about this subject, required to give up some payout just to repair damage they didn't cause? (I'm not being rhetorical.) Corps/ DCI HQ spend money as they see fit. If DCI HQ's believes they need to explain in press releases what they intend to do to improve marcher safety among their Corps, in my view its money well spent, as a press release can't be all that costly to put together, imo. As for the individual Corps, they would be well advised as well, imo, to put out press releases on occasion to tell the public what steps they intend to do in the future in their own Corps to shore up future marcher safety as well. As voluntary, signed up, membership Corps in DCI, they are all impacted by events that implicate one or more of their colleague Corps. As a result, they would be well served to address what they intend to do, publically about this topic as well.. As for the costs for them to put out such a press release on a topic that tainted DCI Corps with a broad brush, the costs are miniscule compared to the costs they incur with lots of other things. Some of these things are likewise beyond their control, ie, show cancellations and its resultant loss of income due to bad weather, loss of bingo operation revenues, etc and dozen's of other events and circumstances foisted upon them and which they had little to nothing to do with. All this said, as mentioned, no press release words, nor investments in such, will help DCI's Brand unless improved marcher safety in the future becomes real, and not some mere Talking Points. Edited April 7, 2019 by BRASSO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 7, 2019 Share Posted April 7, 2019 18 minutes ago, garfield said: ...After all, why is BD (for example), who has no issues made public about this subject, required to give up some payout just to repair damage they didn't cause? (I'm not being rhetorical.) Because, according to some posters, apparently the people on school boards who are axing housing for all corps are idiots who blame the 50+ innocent corps for the sins of a couple. And in their eyes, BD is just as guilty, just as responsible, and must pay the consiquences due to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts