It is time for the business of the activity to evolve

[MikeRapp]

21 minutes ago, rpbobcat said:

Actually I do get it.

if you read my posts,I never mentioned anything about Dan.

As you have said,and I agree,he does what he is directed to do by the BoD.

My issue is with the incestuous make up of the overall organization,including the  BoD.

I've seen several posts over the years referring to DCI's organizational structure as "the inmates running the asylum".

That seems to fit.

As I've posted,until corps directors are willing to give up some power,and allow the creation of a

true governing body,nothing,including the suggestions made on this thread will,based on past actions,

go anywhere.

I also think its highly unlikely this will ever happen.

 

 

 

The only way that would ever happen is if the activity gets so big that streaming and ticketing revenues shift the balance of power to the have nots. Five MLB owners still vehemently disagree with the salary cap, so much so that they often willingly pay a huge penalty to violate it. But because you couldn’t put on a 100 game season without the have nots, the have nots get a vote on how the league operates.

When we get to the point in which you can’t do a tour without the corps outside of the top 10, you will get more talk about financial fairness and other similar rules. Until then, the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs and Dodgers of DCI will determine how things are done.

One of the sticking points for revenue and cost sharing among sports franchises is that the haves did not want to share their money with the have nots because some of those owners weren’t interested in winning the World Series. In other words if the Yankees gave the Royals $10mm a year of their revenue money, that money would go straight into the bank account of that owner, and not into player salaries and similar things that would make a 20-2 game into a 4-2 game.

This is why all sorts franchises now have a salary floor, that dictates that a member must spend at least a certain amount of money on players and personnel.

That said, major league sports entities are franchises. A very unique business entity. DCI is not a franchise and therefore has no power or legal responsibilities outside of being a not for profit org. I’ve worked in franchise businesses at the leadership level, so this is a topic I actually have quite a bit of experience in. Many people mistakenly believe DCI is a franchise when it is nothing but a trade org that runs tours and related sponsorships. 

They may look similar but in reality they couldn’t be much more different.

Edited August 23, 2019 by MikeRapp

[MikeRapp]

28 minutes ago, garfield said:

Yes, you get it.

Thanks.

 

I do get it. But then again I don’t think The Bluecoats is garbage.

😕

[MikeRapp]

Something to ponder. Is there a future where there would be a drum corps or similar franchise organization? Where you might have one franchise in Boston, and only one?

An entity would buy a franchise in Dallas, for example. 

And as a result, the franchise company would legally bind franchise owners to agreeing on revenue sharing, cost sharing, one point of sale system, paper goods, food, etc? It’s interesting to consider. Outside of that I see no way in hades Blue Devils would agree to some sort of revenue sharing agreement with the Pioneers of the DCI world, with all due respect.

[rpbobcat]

21 minutes ago, MikeRapp said:

The only way that would ever happen is if the activity gets so big that streaming and ticketing revenues shift the balance of power to the have nots. Five MLB owners still vehemently disagree with the salary cap, so much so that they often willingly pay a huge penalty to violate it. But because you couldn’t put on a 100 game season without the have nots, the have nots get a vote on how the league operates.

When we get to the point in which you can’t do a tour without the corps outside of the top 10, you will get more talk about financial fairness and other similar rules. Until then, the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs and Dodgers of DCI will determine how things are done.

One of the sticking points for revenue and cost sharing among sports franchises is that the haves did not want to share their money with the have nots because some of those owners weren’t interested in winning the World Series. In other words if the Yankees gave the Royals $10mm a year of their revenue money, that money would go straight into the bank account of that owner, and not into player salaries and similar things that would make a 20-2 game into a 4-2 game.

This is why all sorts franchises now have a salary floor, that dictates that a member must spend at least a certain amount of money on players and personnel.

That said, major league sports entities are franchises. A very unique business entity. DCI is not a franchise and therefore has no power or legal responsibilities outside of being a not for profit org. I’ve worked in franchise businesses at the leadership level, so this is a topic I actually have quite a bit of experience in. Many people mistakenly believe DCI is a franchise when it is nothing but a trade org that runs tours and related sponsorships. 

They may look similar but in reality they couldn’t be much more different.

I'm not looking for revenue sharing.

What I am looking for is DCI to function as a true governing body for the activity.

That provides the ability to establish  uniform (no pun intended) "standards" for all corps such as 

maximum rehearsal and minimum "floor" time,nutritional   standards for meals etc.

It would also open up all kinds of cooperative purchasing arrangements.

But.like I've posted,I don't see corps directors being willing to give up the 

control needed to let this happen.

 

 

 

[garfield]

1 hour ago, rpbobcat said:

To me,this is the problem in a nutshell.

"DCI should be a lot of things".

Thing is,I don't think they want to.

I think they're very happy with the "couple of jobs" they have to do.

As has been discussed in several previous threads.

DCI seems to have no interest in functioning as Drum Corps' Governing Body.

Including exploring the suggestions in this thread regarding co-operative purchasing for

all corps.

 

13 minutes ago, rpbobcat said:

Actually I do get it.

if you read my posts,I never mentioned anything about Dan.

As you have said,and I agree,he does what he is directed to do by the BoD.

My issue is with the incestuous make up of the overall organization,including the  BoD.

I've seen several posts over the years referring to DCI's organizational structure as "the inmates running the asylum".

That seems to fit.

As I've posted,until corps directors are willing to give up some power,and allow the creation of a

true governing body,nothing,including the suggestions made on this thread will,based on past actions,

go anywhere.

I also think its highly unlikely this will ever happen.

OK, good.  Because your first post above indicates a "they".  Who is the "they" in "...'couple of jobs'..." statement?  Also, you said "DCI seems to have no interest in functioning as Drum Corps' Governing Body".  Now that we're in agreement on the respective roles, I presume you meant that the DCI BoD has no interest in allowing DCI to become a "...governing body", right?

I've often searched for a better word than "incestuous" to describe the nature of the activity and it seems particularly poignant in these hyper-sensitive times to find one.  But, instead of trying to find a more apt description, I've chosen to refer to it as it actually is, an "Association" of like-minded members where the members retain the power individually over the association.  "Incestuous" indicates hanky-panky and collusion to cover it up; that doesn't really describe what happens in the decision-making of the activity.

Again, the derogatory "inmates" reference is an unnecessary cut at the director's abilities (even if it soon proves remarkably accurate for one ex-director).  I wish you'd change the description but I understand with it's connotations.  It is, by definition, a self-serving association.

The rest of your post is spot on.  Until the directors are willing to cede some levels of control...  I'm guessing that these past couple of years have been tumultuous enough that the change process has already begun.  

After all, although you disagree with the qualifications of the current BoD, it is true that for the first time EVER, the Chair of the Board is A) a woman, and B) a non-affiliated outside director.  That's something less "incestuous", right?

[garfield]

45 minutes ago, MikeRapp said:

I do get it. But then again I don’t think The Bluecoats is garbage.

😕

I stayed to see the 'Coats on Saturday night, but mostly because I'd already eaten a spicy shrimp cocktail and a HUGE steak before the show.  

So I guess you could say that, for me, 'Coats were the "corps you can stand to watch if you're already fat and happy" on Finals night.  😁

But I will also say that I said to several people around me and to two friends I was texting with, the moment that BD finished their performance, "BD just won.  I don't care what 'Coats bring, they won't beat that".  And I hadn't seen a 'Coats show all year (except on the food court screens at SA).

Edited August 23, 2019 by garfield

[garfield]

16 minutes ago, rpbobcat said:

I'm not looking for revenue sharing.

What I am looking for is DCI to function as a true governing body for the activity.

That provides the ability to establish  uniform (no pun intended) "standards" for all corps such as 

maximum rehearsal and minimum "floor" time,nutritional   standards for meals etc.

It would also open up all kinds of cooperative purchasing arrangements.

But.like I've posted,I don't see corps directors being willing to give up the 

control needed to let this happen.

 

Now it sounds like you're talking truth.  Thanks for patiently reading my missives.

Now, DCI is acting more as a Governing Body in one respect: the member safety issue.  To some they are terrible at optics and maybe acted too measured and slowly.  But they got where most people wanted them to be.  IF another situation arises that identifies another circumstance where they didn't seem to act according to expectations, question the power structure and maybe see that, in fact, NOW the structure is different.

As responsibilities such as this, and other examples, prove to be accretive to the corps' themselves either monetarily or otherwise, it's a reasonable expectation that more centralized power will be given or charged to the Central Office.

Similarly, when the directors are presented with reasonable plans with conservative end results, and the Executive offices successfully implement them, TRUST is built that could pave the way for further centralization.

The decentralization of the activity makes it the Queen Mary, not a speed boat - it takes a lot to turn her in another direction.  (And let's hope we're not confusing the boat with the Titanic).

 

[garfield]

10 hours ago, Jurassic Lancer said:

Shall I pencil in Bluecoats as your hot dog corps next year? 

Touche.

Lol.  Made me chuckle.

 

[cixelsyd]

20 hours ago, Glenn426 said:

This got me going down a rabbit hole to try and figure out if DCI is a Corporation or if its operating as a Non-Profit.

And I found this searching FL Corporations;

http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=DRUMCORPSINTERNATIONAL F970000033810&aggregateId=fornp-f97000003381-fd75e58c-14cc-41a0-8337-ed45308e057d&searchTerm=drum corps&listNameOrder=DRUMCORPSENTERPRISES N419160

and on the IL Corporation search;

https://www.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/CorporateLlcController

Some interesting things.

The EIN Was revoked for non filing in 2005 in Florida

The Corp was Revoked in IL in 2008

Jeff Fielder was listed on the 2004 Filing as a Chairman of DCI. 

Anyone have any up to date Tax Fillings for DCI? Any idea what name they are filing under?

Late arriving to this party.  Just in case anyone gets the wrong idea about the above:

DCI is a 501(c)3 "not-for-profit" organization.

Their Illinois incorporation ceased because they moved to Indiana.

IIRC, Jeff Fiedler was chairman of the DCI Executive Board, which at the time was composed of six corps directors and three outside people.

[cixelsyd]

2 hours ago, MikeRapp said:

Despite what it may appear to be interested in, Nike and other large apparel companies are in fact interested in niche industries. Most would be shocked to learn of the literally hundreds of athletics interests they are involved in. You don’t know about it unless you are in the niche.

I agree that DCI is small compared to the NFL, but it’s not small. It’s a very large and unique activity in the world of youth “sports.” Where the issue may be is that uniforms are not provided by the Nike’s of the world, but shoes could be. Nike makes referee shoes, which is certainly a very niche industry. They also do cheerleading apparel and gear.

That is all nice, but is it relevant?

DCI already has more than one apparel supplier as a "corporate partner".  Some corps probably do too.  The idea of committing the entire DCI circuit to some other supplier would obviously hurt those existing supplier relationships.  So the deal would have to be good enough to make it worth throwing all other apparel supplier relationships under the bus.