Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

well his money brought them to texas

Based on what garfield writes, it sounds like this alone shouldn't be a make-or-break factor (unless perhaps Morrison was poisoning the well with other supporters).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Sure, what's making finals anymore? 

so today on Facebook Tyler Edrington and Andy Eberts announce they were resigning from Crossmen on Facebook, and apparently other staff as well.    anyone know anything?

I miss disagreeing with strangers online in late June about what young adults walking around on a football field are doing. I'm going to have a lot of pent up opinions in 2021, so I too hope there's a

44 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Based on what garfield writes, it sounds like this alone shouldn't be a make-or-break factor (unless perhaps Morrison was poisoning the well with other supporters).

Even if he was (edit: was?  were?), money talks in this game.  That he's gone, there's no reason for suppliers to balk at providing even more support.

Even vendors love an underdog.  And, God knows, there are lots of underdogs in drum corps.

 

Edited by garfield
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, garfield said:

Even if he was (edit: was? were?)

I often am confused by this one, but it appears that "were" is the correct choice. The subjunctive is used for "wished-for, tentatively assumed, or hypothetical states of affairs, rather than things that the speaker intends to represent as true and factual."

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, garfield said:

Even if he was ... money talks in this game.  That he's gone, there's no reason for suppliers to balk at providing even more support.

Even vendors love an underdog.  And, God knows, there are lots of underdogs in drum corps.

People act against their financial best interests all the time, so I think it would depend on his personal relationship with the supporters. It's not inconceivable that someone forced out of an organization might be able to convince friends at other companies that they shouldn't do business with that treated him badly. And yes, if this were happening, it might be possible for Crossmen to find alternate supporters, but perhaps not in the short term. (But this is all hypothetical, as far as I know.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, N.E. Brigand said:

People act against their financial best interests all the time, <snip>

They do, but not for long.  Mom taught me, and I believe she was teaching human nature, that people grant the benefit of the doubt the first time but rarely a second.  With FM gone, if he was poison, he's now gone and the correct business decision is to pay attention to those now running the Crossmen organization, for so long as that program - the outgrowth of that organization - puts the corporate image in front of the most eyeballs justifying the "investment" (one of my personally favorite marketing/sales terms).

I changed firms proactively one time.  After the move I was flooded with new assets.  "I just hated the firm you used to work for", is what I heard from clients.  Could be, now that Morrison is gone, the support flows can and will increase.

Thankfully, it appears that majority support came from corporations, not people.  Corporations make business decisions, individuals (in my experience) make emotional, "friendship" decisions; I'm confident that the necessary business dollars will follow the eyeballs that Crossmen can present to their brand.

 

Edited by garfield
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

I often am confused by this one, but it appears that "were" is the correct choice. The subjunctive is used for "wished-for, tentatively assumed, or hypothetical states of affairs, rather than things that the speaker intends to represent as true and factual."

I hear my English-teacher mother in my ear... "Subjunctive is subjective".  Yeah, "were" is right.  Thanks much!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

People act against their financial best interests all the time, so I think it would depend on his personal relationship with the supporters. It's not inconceivable that someone forced out of an organization might be able to convince friends at other companies that they shouldn't do business with that treated him badly. 

You mean, like a boycott?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

You mean, like a boycott?

Probably more like a silent revolt, if it were.  But I doubt it.

I would expect a boycott ONLY if it would benefit a corporation more to participate in it than not.  And what rationale could there be for that in an activity that depends on, literal, public exposure of brand, to provide the value proposition?  Is FM starting a new corps that will attract vendors more than the Crossmen?

If FM is, was, or might "poison the well", they'd have to justify doing it to benefit their corporations MORE than by saying "Sorry, Fred, we're going to stick with advertising that the corps provides us.  Looks like they still attract two or three times a full corps to tryouts, and they're still in the competitive race."  Is FM starting a new corps that will attract vendors more than the Crossmen?

It's the business decision that will win in the end.  The "capitalist" one at the business/vendor level.

'Merica

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

You mean, like a boycott?

Sure that could be one example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2020 at 2:57 PM, Jeff Ream said:

well their online telethon raised i believe $84k and they kept $1600 a kid as opposed to full refunds or rolling it over....can't be cash is it?

Wait, what? I missed that point earlier. How much is the annual fee for participation, and how how much had Crossmen collected by March? I have a very hard time believing that Crossmen could justify just keeping that much. Most performing arts companies I know, whose primary "earned" income (as opposed to contributions) comes in the form of ticket sales, either for individual shows or for season-long subsriptions, took a three-pronged approach to customers who already had bought a ticket or a subscription for performances that were cancelled (or indefinitely postponed) due to the pandemic, in this order: (1) Would you like to donate your payment? (2) Would you like to roll your payment over to next season (or whenever the company is again able to perform)? and finally (3) Would you like your payment refunded?

It woud be unconscionable for Crossmen not to offer the third option to members, in my opinion.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
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.