Fran Haring Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 5 minutes ago, rjohn76 said: Not to mention, some of those groups have been hosting shows for decades. I can't imagine them being thrilled with the idea of losing out on their fundraising/revenue stream. Example - July 3rd show in Cedarburg, WI: I wonder what the model is for an entity like the PGA Tour, which sponsors the various tournaments but also works with local sponsors/charity groups... like the Thunderbirds at the Phoenix event. I watch a lot of pro golf, but I honestly don't know what the "division of duties" dynamic is, in terms of who does certain things. I do know that the golf club hosting an event provides a lot of manpower (including dozens of volunteers at each event). Of course, comparing the PGA Tour to drum corps is kinda like comparing apples to slabs of concrete... two completely different animals, one with worldwide reach, one a niche activity... but I guess my point is, if the PGA Tour decided to step in and take more control over the management of an event, I might imagine the local sponsor(s) might not be too happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) 23 minutes ago, rjohn76 said: I get the allure of trying to funnel all of the revenue direct to DCI. However, I wonder if they can truly pull off hosting shows around the country without the involvement of some of the groups currently hosting/running shows. Even with a reduced slate of shows, it still takes a local presence & herd of volunteers to make a show a success. Simple things like access to stadiums and other community assets often times are a result of established connections made through the local host. Not to mention, some of those groups have been hosting shows for decades. I can't imagine them being thrilled with the idea of losing out on their fundraising/revenue stream. Example - July 3rd show in Cedarburg, WI: Or the Dublin, Ohio show! The lesson is the same as what my dad taught us boys for decades: "The higher up the totem pole you get, the more your a$$ shows." Edited October 2, 2019 by garfield 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 3 hours ago, garfield said: Maybe consider: - corps need fewer volunteers to run shows, fewer staff - all revenue flows to DCI, particularly that which flows now to non-drum corps entities like school band programs - consistency of messaging could (could) improve attendance - better ticket-pricing elasticity; show tickets will likely reflect the cost/benefit metric of DCI instead of the show promoter. Likely ticket price increases across the tour at a consistent and decreasing rate to measure efficacy to the pivot point of the supply/demand pricing curve - sponsorships from equipment/other suppliers would offer more consistent value justifying higher placement costs - rescheduling the tour to fewer/bigger shows could (could) produce less reduction in demand than increase in revenue - among other possibilities... There's lots of hair on the idea that needs combed straight, but I think the idea is worth considering seriously for no other reason than it's never been seriously considered. yes but those revenues are offset by salary costs for DCI personnel to run the shows at the office and at the venue. Consistency of messaging is easy...make a standard package that MUST be adhered to. you take local groups out of the equation, you lose tons of local contacts for housing, advertising, vendors, you name it. Yes tickets will adjust....up to offset the added expenses. Sponsorships from the usual suspects around the marching arts rarely lead to cash revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted October 2, 2019 Author Share Posted October 2, 2019 14 hours ago, garfield said: True but, if it frees up corps assets to do what THEY do best (produce entertainment) instead of acting as show hosts, wouldn't it be better for both DCI and the corps if they could pull it off? If that were true, yes. But many of the "corps assets" involved in show hosting are not the same "corps assets" that produce entertainment. 10 hours ago, garfield said: Maybe consider: - corps need fewer volunteers to run shows, fewer staff - all revenue flows to DCI, particularly that which flows now to non-drum corps entities like school band programs - consistency of messaging could (could) improve attendance - better ticket-pricing elasticity; show tickets will likely reflect the cost/benefit metric of DCI instead of the show promoter. Likely ticket price increases across the tour at a consistent and decreasing rate to measure efficacy to the pivot point of the supply/demand pricing curve - sponsorships from equipment/other suppliers would offer more consistent value justifying higher placement costs - rescheduling the tour to fewer/bigger shows could (could) produce less reduction in demand than increase in revenue - among other possibilities... There's lots of hair on the idea that needs combed straight, but I think the idea is worth considering seriously for no other reason than it's never been seriously considered. Fair enough... and I do see some good points here. But I would counter with the following observation. Corps already do have volunteers lined up to run their shows. In some cases, they have armies of volunteers. The show hosting task is particularly well-suited to volunteerism, as many of the tasks only require an individual to participate on show day. The corps that has ties to that community is in the best position to obtain local volunteers - and conversely, it benefits that corps to cultivate an army of local volunteers, some of whom will go on to help with other challenges like finding rehearsal sites, supporting camp weekends, and operating other local fundraisers. I cannot even begin to understand how DCI would replicate those workforces at every tour show. It would be horribly inefficient to hire that many DCI staff and send them all over the country for eight weeks. As for your other thoughts: - if running shows is such a lucrative, risk-free venture that we want the activity to reap all its benefits, then by all means look into what it would take to replace the TEPs. I see two issues there, one being that TEPs serve a vital role in creating/staffing shows in places where/when no one else can. The other is that show hosting does involve risk. Many corps have gone belly up over a failed home show. DCI itself almost went bankrupt over losses stemming from their 1993 championships. If we have answers to both of those issues, this portion of the idea could have merit. But since (as you say) the purpose of DCI is to return revenue to the corps, what does it matter if corps still run their own home shows? - Consistency of messaging sounds good. DCI could provide that to all show hosts as a separate initiative. (I think they already do.) - Ticket-pricing elasticity? The cost/benefit metric of DCI? Measure efficacy to the pivot point of the supply/demand pricing curve? These are secondary concerns, not worth the hiring of 120 more DCI employees. - Extending sponsorship advertising across more events sounds good. That could be done as a separate initiative. (They already overlap, as many such DCI sponsors also sponsor corps.) - As I said before, I think the logistics of tour require some smaller shows. I also suspect that fewer/bigger shows would yield a net loss of audience. We have some good-sized local audiences who will not follow us out-of-state to the nearest major regional if we take their local show away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 2 hours ago, cixelsyd said: If that were true, yes. But many of the "corps assets" involved in show hosting are not the same "corps assets" that produce entertainment. Fair enough... and I do see some good points here. But I would counter with the following observation. Corps already do have volunteers lined up to run their shows. In some cases, they have armies of volunteers. The show hosting task is particularly well-suited to volunteerism, as many of the tasks only require an individual to participate on show day. The corps that has ties to that community is in the best position to obtain local volunteers - and conversely, it benefits that corps to cultivate an army of local volunteers, some of whom will go on to help with other challenges like finding rehearsal sites, supporting camp weekends, and operating other local fundraisers. I cannot even begin to understand how DCI would replicate those workforces at every tour show. It would be horribly inefficient to hire that many DCI staff and send them all over the country for eight weeks. As for your other thoughts: - if running shows is such a lucrative, risk-free venture that we want the activity to reap all its benefits, then by all means look into what it would take to replace the TEPs. I see two issues there, one being that TEPs serve a vital role in creating/staffing shows in places where/when no one else can. The other is that show hosting does involve risk. Many corps have gone belly up over a failed home show. DCI itself almost went bankrupt over losses stemming from their 1993 championships. If we have answers to both of those issues, this portion of the idea could have merit. But since (as you say) the purpose of DCI is to return revenue to the corps, what does it matter if corps still run their own home shows? - Consistency of messaging sounds good. DCI could provide that to all show hosts as a separate initiative. (I think they already do.) - Ticket-pricing elasticity? The cost/benefit metric of DCI? Measure efficacy to the pivot point of the supply/demand pricing curve? These are secondary concerns, not worth the hiring of 120 more DCI employees. - Extending sponsorship advertising across more events sounds good. That could be done as a separate initiative. (They already overlap, as many such DCI sponsors also sponsor corps.) - As I said before, I think the logistics of tour require some smaller shows. I also suspect that fewer/bigger shows would yield a net loss of audience. We have some good-sized local audiences who will not follow us out-of-state to the nearest major regional if we take their local show away. You're, apparently, just being contentious by presenting your thoughts. Shame on you. 🙂 I think some distinction has to be made between Corps-TEPs, Independent-TEPs, local shows in HS stadiums, local shows in larger "commercial" stadiums, and DCI-run Regional shows. Then we identify entities to discuss. For instance, I see all local HS Indy-TEP shows going away entirely. I see larger local shows staying but being run either by corps TEPs (with their "army" of volunteers) or by DCI by contract with the stadium venue operators and crew. I see DCI running local, non-corps TEP shows and I see those shows being reduced in number and replaced with larger shows. Interestingly, I don't see corps being overly-willing to give up their show revenue but, if the numbers prove out, it's possible that they, and the activity, will earn more by turning over show admin to DCI (the numbers need analysis). Hosting a show is a risk, no getting around that. Ticket pricing elasticity is a core component of this change because almost everyone in DCI thinks the corps' talent is "given away" too cheap. Yes, there's some institutional arrogance in that sentiment but the activity doesn't really know how high ticket prices can be increased before fans stop coming in sufficient numbers. The reason they don't know is because ticket-price-setting has always been left up to the local show sponsor so long as the DCI contract was paid. The sponsorship initiative is not corps-related, it's venue-related. Giving a company like Mapex/Majestic an advert platform that runs across 75 venues (or 100 if the tour is not reduced) is better than them sponsoring a corps and having fans see that message only in the 30-odd shows in which that corps performs. They don't overlap now because, other than regionals, you don't see sponsorship dollars at show stops. Fewer fans at fewer shows paying more to see fewer corps in more heated battle could, COULD, net a bigger revenue. But there's no way to know that possibility unless DCI can corral the numbers from all TEP's, venues, and corps. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 Also, consider... An Indy-TEP only pays the DCI contract price to DCI and DCI's "cost" to have that Indy-TEP run that show is whatever show profit the Indy-TEP is able to make above and beyond the contract. If DCI is running said show, they'll have to pay venue employees for ticket-taking, ushers, and venue costs but they'll be able to enjoy all of the revenue from the gate. The distinction will be if the net difference is a positive number to DCI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted October 2, 2019 Author Share Posted October 2, 2019 1 hour ago, garfield said: Ticket pricing elasticity is a core component of this change because almost everyone in DCI thinks the corps' talent is "given away" too cheap. Yes, there's some institutional arrogance in that sentiment Liking this post just for the phrase "institutional arrogance". Quote but the activity doesn't really know how high ticket prices can be increased before fans stop coming in sufficient numbers. You can determine this by raising ticket prices until the fans stop coming. Then we will have absolutely rock-solid marketing insight (and no fans). Quote Fewer fans at fewer shows paying more to see fewer corps in more heated battle could, COULD, net a bigger revenue. But there's no way to know that possibility unless DCI can corral the numbers from all TEP's, venues, and corps. Yes, first we need to cause fewer fans, fewer shows, higher ticket prices, and fewer corps. Then we can see if revenue is bigger. Those last two paragraphs were tongue-in-cheek, of course. A strategic plan such as this one must generate brainstorming sessions that range from genius to comedy gold... possibly both in the same idea. Behind my humor is a genuine concern that DCI data analysts are careful when extrapolating from correlation to causation. Unlike more robust markets, we do not have the luxury of learning from experiments like the ones I "suggested" above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 14 hours ago, Jeff Ream said: yes but those revenues are offset by salary costs for DCI personnel to run the shows at the office and at the venue. Consistency of messaging is easy...make a standard package that MUST be adhered to. you take local groups out of the equation, you lose tons of local contacts for housing, advertising, vendors, you name it. Yes tickets will adjust....up to offset the added expenses. Sponsorships from the usual suspects around the marching arts rarely lead to cash revenue. Spot on Jeff......this proposal, very reminiscent of GH/Gibb's G-7 proposal further distances drum corps from the local contacts. It's a suicide mission for the activity. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 1 hour ago, xandandl said: Spot on Jeff......this proposal, very reminiscent of GH/Gibb's G-7 proposal further distances drum corps from the local contacts. It's a suicide mission for the activity. Instead of presuming your motivations (pot, meet kettle), I'll simply ask that you share your list of comparison items that leads you to believe this "proposal" (is it one? Hmm... didn't know that. I thought it was a discussion on a forum board) is, in fact, reminiscent of the G7 proposal. Let me help... "The Draw" Segmenting performances to certain classes only Revenue capture into the "top" corps only, all others are "...allowed to form their own league...". Restricting show performances to only a segment of a single class. Firing the ED Shuttering DCI except for functions only it can perform "Expanding" the show to include special features and performances for fan inclusion and "enjoyment" New revenue for a select group of corps only I'm sure you can list others, but these seem to be a good start. How do these items compare under the G7 (actual proposal) vs. a change in event management discussion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, garfield said: Also, consider... An Indy-TEP only pays the DCI contract price to DCI and DCI's "cost" to have that Indy-TEP run that show is whatever show profit the Indy-TEP is able to make above and beyond the contract. If DCI is running said show, they'll have to pay venue employees for ticket-taking, ushers, and venue costs but they'll be able to enjoy all of the revenue from the gate. The distinction will be if the net difference is a positive number to DCI. without seriously jacking up prices, i don't see a net positive. you have venue costs, insurance, any housing things...who runs concessions?....staff that goes from housing site to housing site, those running all logistics at the show site, plus ticket takers, ushers etc...... I have gotten very involved with helping band programs run their shows the last 8 years, and while they don't have the cost a DCI show has, they also don't charge the same for tickets. And every one of our shows, minus weather issues, has seen increased revenue by simple things like seeking donations for food, ad sales for programs, seeking sponsors for trophies and more, and we have a streamlined packet for all hosts to follow. They got out of the live and die by ticket sales and program sales mentality, and many are easily clearing 10-15 grand Edited October 2, 2019 by Jeff Ream 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.