Jump to content

2020 Rules Proposals


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, cixelsyd said:

Kathy Black interview - "Revenue":

She identifies the origin of the idea as a most curious and ironic source - a task force exploring the "new revenue" strategic plan objective.  Yet she only identified one possible new type of revenue - ticket sales to woodwind players.  We already market heavily to bands, so that would not be a "new" source of revenue.

Meanwhile, there is another strategic plan objective for growing current revenue sources.  Were they consulted about this proposal?  What if "new revenue" comes at the expense of losing ten times that much "current revenue"?

Ten times??? Ten times??? Hahaha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Glenn426 said:

Ten times??? Ten times??? Hahaha

I wouldn’t laugh too heartily. The fans this decision will alienate have a helluva lot more disposable income to throw at drum corps than the few new members they are trying to appeal to.

Edited by Sutasaurus
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Glenn426 said:

Ten times??? Ten times??? Hahaha

I think those in vehement opposition to this proposal are just slightly over stating what their real impact will be if they leave. That and my guess is that 95%+ of those complaining will be back and spending money just as they were before. They actually enjoy the activity and they enjoy complaining about the activity even more.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HockeyDad said:

Sounds like you’re scared. 
And oh, worry not, I will still have drum corps entertainment in my life. I have recordings of all the corps back to 1972. That I spent my money on. Kathy’s revenue increases will need to overcome the decreases from those who stop spending our money on it. I’m thinking WW parents won’t be interested in purchasing legacy recordings. Just a hunch. 

As I said in my first post on the matter I'll be the one holding the door. DCI is holding the door too. We're not pushing you out. Just saying "if you don't like it, there's the door."

If you decide to stay and overcome and release your clutched pearls, enjoy the music, be proud of the achievement, you can plug your ears for the 20 seconds of a show when a clarinet plays and the rest of the show will remain the same. 

Those of us that enjoy the artform for the excellence and don't equate excellence with brass and percussion only, will enjoy the performances, the excitement of the kids on finals night, the achievement of the designers, this community and nostalgia.

But I guess now you guys and everyone who are #neverWW can enjoy DCA. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, garfield said:

WTH?

I think your rationale of your first paragraph is flawed.

I think your last sentence is absolutely wacky on several levels.  What is "the collective sum of individual corps" if it's not "DCI"?  This makes me think you don't really understand how the activity is governed.

"The collective sum of individual corps" means individual corps understood in relation to each other individual corps, and can refer to a subset of corps which does not match the subset of all corps. It's entirely for DCI in its "governing body" form to have ideals and initiatives which actively work against the interests of not only one individual corps, but several individual corps. The activity is governed by representatives of (most, but not all) corps, not by every single person involved with a corps in a meaningful capacity, and not by representatives of every single corps. There are examples all the time of corps directors with visions that oppose those of their membership, their design teams, their logistics admin, etc, and especially examples of world class DCI members seeking only to benefit their own organizations, and not, for example, open class groups. It's not unreasonable to say that what benefits DCI as a governing body/activity/events organizer/collective of corps directors does not necessarily benefit corps as individual units/businesses/educational organizations. People have given plenty of examples of ways in which the passing of any given proposal could disproportionately financially burden certain classes of corps, and that logic works in the same vein--"government" is meaningfully distinct from "representation of everybody's interests."

As for my rationale in my first paragraph, that's the rationale given in the interview, as rephrased in more explicit terms by me. If you think there's a flaw, then surely that's a flaw that exists in the logistics of the proposal itself. If you think there's a flaw, why don't you identify and substantiate it so that a meaningful discussion can ensue? My same point has been similarly made by others as well:

  

1 hour ago, cixelsyd said:

Kathy Black interview - "Revenue":

She identifies the origin of the idea as a most curious and ironic source - a task force exploring the "new revenue" strategic plan objective.  Yet she only identified one possible new type of revenue - ticket sales to woodwind players.  We already market heavily to bands, so that would not be a "new" source of revenue.

Meanwhile, there is another strategic plan objective for growing current revenue sources.  Were they consulted about this proposal?  What if "new revenue" comes at the expense of losing ten times that much "current revenue"?

I agree that the only source of new revenue that was identified is ticket sales to woodwind players. However DCI is already marketed to bands and because there are already so many woodwind fans of the activity who either don't intend to march or who take it upon themselves to learn an applicable skill so they can march; thus this is not actually a "new" source of revenue, nor would it ultimately constitute additional revenue. Again, those who are interested are already in the stands and it's not like stadiums are getting bigger, so there's ultimately still that ticket cap either way. My original comment was meant to point out that the things which were identified as "new revenue" are actually only ostensibly new, and that because of a fundamental misunderstanding of how audience membership and fan engagement works, this "new" audience would not ultimately lead to additional revenue beyond what DCI currently brings in.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve tired to keep a very open mind about this as it’s been unfolding over the past couple of weeks, and was interested in hearing Ms. Black’s comments yesterday on the video. I was grateful for her honest answers to some tough questions, but put off by her and Dan trying to temper things a bit. The revenue answer was not surprising, at least they’re upfront and honest about it. But I don’t think they did themselves any favors and might have made the situation worse. 
 

I spend about $15k on drum corps a year. Between going to shows and donations (the ladder being the largest part of that spend) and have done that for the better part of 15 years. My wife and I sat down to discuss this morning and have decided that we will discontinue our support of the activity should this pass and no longer attend shows, and cease with our volunteer obligations. This was a very personal decision for us and not done out of anger or meant to be disrespectful. We just feel that the mission statement and core values no longer reflect what we feel we’re the key tenants is this activity for many years, nor do we feel we can support the current leadership that is guiding the activity. 
 

This was a very personal decision for me and her. I’m a drum corps alumni, and I believe very much in the current model. I do believe we pushed the limitations on what drum corps should be, but have generally accepted that as long as things don’t go much further than they are now we would be OK. But after hearing Ms Black discuss revenues streams being the driving force behind the decision, and seeing very little regard for the historical and musical elements that have made this activity unique, it’s clear her values and the values shared by the current board of directors are out of touch with the alumni community. Respectfully, I feel it’s time to part ways - regardless of the outcome of today’s vote.

One last note - I have three teenage boys, all brass players, all who were extremely interested in drum corps and wanting to march. After hearing about the potential rules changes and watching Ms Black’s interview, two of the three said they no longer have an interest and the third (the youngest) says he just doesn’t know (but he’s our sports kid and is probably lost to football and basketball anyway). 

 

Edited by Newseditor44
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...