garfield Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 3 hours ago, HockeyDad said: Here’s a crazy idea. We’ve read over and over that the addition of WW could only possibly raise revenue if the corps size is increased. Well, how about increasing corps size Without adding WW. Since brass players are being turned away today, I presume the activity can accommodate more brass players. Therefore running with the logic that more MMs = more money (not a theory I endorse but running with Kathy Black’s logic) would that not also increase revenue? Adding WW does not have to be a prerequisite to increase in max corps size. TA DAH! I believe that, in the Midwest, we call this 'Hook, Line, and Sinker'". And some here thought her presentation was sloppily put together... Heh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 3 hours ago, HockeyDad said: Here’s a crazy idea. We’ve read over and over that the addition of WW could only possibly raise revenue if the corps size is increased. Well, how about increasing corps size Without adding WW. Since brass players are being turned away today, I presume the activity can accommodate more brass players. Therefore running with the logic that more MMs = more money (not a theory I endorse but running with Kathy Black’s logic) would that not also increase revenue? Adding WW does not have to be a prerequisite to increase in max corps size. TA DAH! I've said it since the very beginning: A/I was not the Holy Grail. MM limits was the first-determinant. Now the rationale to increase membership to accommodate WW is muted or gone. "New Revenue" will not be proven by increased membership the majority of WC corps. I believe A/I was, is, and will be for OC and the commentary already is hinting towards the benefit for that class. Not so, WC, that I've seen. (I just can't see Crown changing that hornline to be "inclusive" to WWs.) Allowing A/I will also align it better with Soundsport. Others here disagree, but I don't think increasing membership limits will come up in two years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 3 hours ago, cixelsyd said: And there we go again. If there is only one thing we learned this past week, it is that the WW issue transcends age demographics. Even the marching-age group opposes the idea. It would be an enormous miscalculation for anyone to continue holding the stereotypes you characterize in this quote. Why? What difference does it make, anyway? As you would be the first to remind us, the average fan lifespan in this day and age is allegedly only 3.5 years. At that level of retention, who cares if the fan is 16 or 60? What does matter is the depth of their support. How much can they spend? How much will they spend on drum corps? Will they volunteer? Do they have local connections and influence that can help find show venues, housing sites, places to rehearse? Do they have even higher levels of skill, expertise and interest that you look for to populate the BoDs of the participating corps? It matters because the discussion was about losing "legacy" fans' SPENDING on the activity, and the contention is that newer fans and their spending would replace the legacy fan's spending. Why are you folks getting hung up on the nouns used? In the context of the discussion of spending patterns of various age groups, are you so triggered that we can't discuss age? If that's the case, then ALL of the arguments so far presented around which age category will more support DCI financially are invalid. Does anyone think DCI doesn't parse their data by age bracket and participant category? I'm sorry if it's triggering, but that doesn't delegitimize the research or its need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 4 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said: Just catching up and saw this: "A proposal recommending the repositioning of judges customarily located in the press box to vantage points closer to the field and audience has been passed along to a committee for further evaluation." I'm glad it didn't fail outright, since it would be a step in the right direction. I brought this up a week ago and was "corrected" by a veteran poster. "Because they'll still be in the box", was the answer. No, he didn't have all the information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Haring Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 5 hours ago, keystone3ply said: Along side Jimmy Hoffa? Wait, he was cremated. Never mind... 😂😎 Jimmy's in North Jersey, with a nice view of the Pulaski Skyway. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 19 minutes ago, garfield said: It matters because the discussion was about losing "legacy" fans' SPENDING on the activity, and the contention is that newer fans and their spending would replace the legacy fan's spending. But it is not just "legacy fans" that oppose the idea. Even the age-eligible kids (even the WW players) came out vocally against it. Quote Why are you folks getting hung up on the nouns used? In the context of the discussion of spending patterns of various age groups, are you so triggered that we can't discuss age? If that's the case, then ALL of the arguments so far presented around which age category will more support DCI financially are invalid. Does anyone think DCI doesn't parse their data by age bracket and participant category? I'm sorry if it's triggering, but that doesn't delegitimize the research or its need. Sure, we could discuss age. But more often, people bring it up to discourage discussion. And since no research was presented with the proposal, or even alluded to, I cannot say what data DCI might have. I know they can parse survey data by age groups. But have they asked survey questions about woodwinds? Who did they survey? Are they extrapolating other data (i.e. revenue) that is not traceable by age? 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 (edited) 42 minutes ago, garfield said: Does anyone think DCI doesn't parse their data by age bracket and participant category? I'm sorry if it's triggering, but that doesn't delegitimize the research or its need. I work IT and it doesn’t matter what I think... what matters are facts.... and I have not heard of any facts released by DCI on this. No facts on what was found nor how the facts were gathered Edited January 12, 2020 by JimF-LowBari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: But it is not just "legacy fans" that oppose the idea. Even the age-eligible kids (even the WW players) came out vocally against it. Sure, we could discuss age. But more often, people bring it up to discourage discussion. And since no research was presented with the proposal, or even alluded to, I cannot say what data DCI might have. I know they can parse survey data by age groups. But have they asked survey questions about woodwinds? Who did they survey? Are they extrapolating other data (i.e. revenue) that is not traceable by age? I appreciate that there are other constituents who want or have a voice, but the discussion referenced was about the relative SPENDING patterns of "old", "legacy" (presumably without marching members in their family) versus the younger families with marching members. I don't bring up anything to discourage discussion; quite the opposite. Rational discussion without personal attacks is my goal. I CAN say what data DCI had. Why do you presume that you're entitled to the info when you have no involvement with the activity besides buying a ticket? I believe that it has not been shown that dino spending (the group of which includes myself) is greater than family spending of younger fans whose family and friends are included in that member's financial impact on the activity. And I would say I spend more than the average of my dino age bracket. Sorry, "Legacy" age bracket. Pfft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 3 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said: I work IT and it doesn’t matter what I think... what matters are facts.... and I have not heard of any facts released by DCI on this. No facts on what was found nor how the facts were gathered And, somehow, you believe you are entitled to such facts. Do you have a corps association through which you can get the data? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 13 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: But it is not just "legacy fans" that oppose the idea. Even the age-eligible kids (even the WW players) came out vocally against it. Sure, we could discuss age. But more often, people bring it up to discourage discussion. And since no research was presented with the proposal, or even alluded to, I cannot say what data DCI might have. I know they can parse survey data by age groups. But have they asked survey questions about woodwinds? Who did they survey? Are they extrapolating other data (i.e. revenue) that is not traceable by age? You misunderstand the process. You're apparently in good company. 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.