Just an idea, SCV

[scheherazadesghost]

.

Edited June 11, 2023 by scheherazadesghost

[MarimbaManiac]

1 hour ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Vanguard has tried a variety of other revenue sources across the years, including pick-up ensembles that play for Sharks games (before BD did it I think or no?),

You're thinking of BDE (Blue Devils Entertainment). They were the official drumline for the 49ers, Golden State Warriors, various well known media/commercials etc. They played at the super bowl, including current (at the time) red team staff who played for BDE because they were paying actual money.

Edited March 17, 2023 by MarimbaManiac

[scheherazadesghost]

.

Edited June 11, 2023 by scheherazadesghost

[cixelsyd]

9 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said:

When I see an NP that's having financial trouble AND hasn't demonstrated commitment to each of the conventional revenue generators that are standardized everywhere I've worked and in the literature, I'mma point it out.

Can you exploit individual, community, and corporate sponsors? Of course. Hence my earlier in-depth resources attesting to such. But ILC asked how to diversify revenue in a NP and I answered because I've been an advancement officer and the basics are a web search away.

Trustworthy NPs painstakingly maintain enough transparency and communication in order to eliminate risks to their donors. Responsible, knowledgeable, and reliable donors know this and can sniff out untrustworthy NPs from a mile away. So, NPs have to carefully balance all of these revenue sources on a dime because, as you elude to and I said, exploitation is always a risk. It just seems some would rather place most of that risk on the primary internal stakeholders (members, staff) rather than external stakeholders (donors, community.) I argue that more balance is needed among them all. It's not a novel argument.

Vanguard has tried a variety of other revenue sources across the years, including pick-up ensembles that play for Sharks games (before BD did it I think or no?), spaghetti dinners, benefits, galas, fundraising events and community programs. My question is: why did so few stick? With all my heart, because I needed to get far away from them for a while, what happened? At best the pandemic took them out. At worst, they were hopping from one to another without consistency before that. Both are common in the NP space.

We're hardly even arguing here. I've already said VMAPA will need to rely on drastic measures like extreme volunteerism. I yield if all you want me to admit is that they should probably consider keeping wages low for a while. Of course they should, and there's plenty of precedence in the NP world for that. I've lived it. And TBH, the hard ### professional volunteer in me thinks that perhaps these drastic measures might serve to weed out anyone who was there for the money. (I just really don't want to believe there was much of that going on.) Further, ILC has already suggested executives forgo compensation or offer to spread their pay among their subordinates. Seriously. It's a good way to model and demonstrate care.

And drastic times call for drastic measures. Just know that good nonprofit strategy also considers the long game, or how to nurture sustainability, at the same time. NPs are always just one pandemic, recession, financial misstep, etc from being snuffed out. All of them. It's the edge NP work often teeters on these days, even the most established institutions.

Trying to quote the best parts of this post, but I could not find anything to leave out.

Yes, we are not even arguing here.  Just feeling the same pain. 

You have given me a new word with which to try to explain what I am observing.  DCI was purportedly created because corps felt that they were being exploited by VFW, AL, and others, under whose administration only about 20 top corps could count on a share of the revenue that made touring potentially practical or sustainable.  The only thing that changed with DCI was that the top 20 or so corps got to do the exploiting.  Today, after 50 years of that, the only other thing that has changed is that there are only 20 other corps left to exploit instead of 400.

I would love to see a drum corps activity that can pay its administration, designers/instructors, and support staff like the professionals they want them to be.  But at this point, they cannot even treat the remaining 20 non-member corps like the professionals they already are.  And it is not about a time of crisis - it has always been this way.

Elevating staff from self-sacrificing to properly paid is a dream too far for me right now.  Before we ask a corps like Vanguard Cadets to take on an $80,000 to $100,000 staff budget, can we pay them more than the $0 appearance fees they typically get when touring?

[scheherazadesghost]

.

Edited June 11, 2023 by scheherazadesghost

[GUARDLING]

2 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said:

😎 Luckily my pain threshold is high and my love for this activity is more fierce than it has been in years. Finding Nirvana just made me cry again, lol, I'm a sap.

And I'm appreciating our dialogue.

TY for this. Crucial legacy info there that my gen and younger may not know.

💯 Heard. My home corps pride almost led me to say "cHaMpiOnZ dEsErVe BeTteR!!1!" but even that's the wrong mentality. Every corps of all levels of skill and achievement deserve more than $0 for performing. It sets a bad precedence. (And trust, I've done plenty of those unpaid gigs in my day as a contemporary dancer...for exposurelol. Talk about another exploitive NP industry I found myself in. )

My understanding is that the DCI BoD would need to approve that pretty hefty change, and it would require the top 20 to give up some of those appearance fees. Is that right? I've always been for the big and little dogs getting even shares.

Ive said it millions of times but worth saying it again. People need to put their butts in seats for the smaller corps instead of complaing.$$$$$ will always speak louder. OC members literally play to nothing.....often. Some have said that the sched. and place doesn't allow for people to get to. Well that may be true now but wasn't always like that. Even where some smaller corps appear with the so called big guys people file in for the biggies and spend the other time in the lot ( which i never understood) 

WGI HS A class never had a say BITD until WGI figured out that it was where the money was in fees etc etc.Worldclass may fill the arena but the little guys fund the activity the entire year. Let the little guys show $$$$$$ you watch how fast equal status follows.

Edited March 17, 2023 by GUARDLING

[2muchcoffeeman]

2 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

Before we ask a corps like Vanguard Cadets to take on an $80,000 to $100,000 staff budget, can we pay them more than the $0 appearance fees they typically get when touring?

Even for the top corps, appearance fees amount to a very small slice of the annual revenue pie. Unless show organizers start selling out 50,000-seat stadiums or charging $500 per ticket, appearance fees are not going to make an appreciable difference in any corps' finances -- certainly not make-or-break, tour-or-don't-tour, differences.

In general, what moves the revenue needle, in descending order, is: tuition, side hustles (bingo, festivals, home shows, etc.), fundraising/grants/alums, merch sales, appearance fees. The order in the back end of that list will shift around depending on the corps.

Edited March 17, 2023 by 2muchcoffeeman

[scheherazadesghost]

.

Edited June 11, 2023 by scheherazadesghost

[cixelsyd]

2 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said:

My understanding is that the DCI BoD would need to approve that pretty hefty change, and it would require the top 20 to give up some of those appearance fees. Is that right? 

That is the natural first assumption... but I disagree. 

Appearance fees have been static for decades, not even being corrected for inflation, so that DCI revenue could be directed to other things like building a rainy-day reserve, expanding staff, and paying historical top corps more in revenue sharing.  (Sorry, I think I reversed the order of priority there.)  I think it is time to at least hold the budget for those items static, and raise appearance fees.

The bigger issue is inclusion.  DCI operates with about 20 member corps and 20 non-member corps.  Maybe instead of calling them "world-class" and "open-class", we should call them sustainable class and unsustainable class, because it is absolutely asinine that corps who jump through all the currently required organizational, financial, compliance and member safety/health hoops are denied appearance fees, segregated into separate shows or whole separate tours, and steered away from all the best revenue opportunities a competing drum corps has.

I am concerned that we may be reaching a tipping point.  On August 7th of this year, the DCI open-class will convene at their separate contest site outside of the Indianapolis area for their championship prelims.  Vying for the 12 available spots in finals will be... less than 12 corps.  Meanwhile, the sustainable class complains about the rising costs of their tours.  Anyone with even one economics course in their background can tell us that having more corps could either grow revenue, or mitigate the costs of touring through economies of scale.  Or both. 

DCI should fight rising costs like a business - by growing.  There are more corps available now.  Just let them in.

[cixelsyd]

2 hours ago, GUARDLING said:

Ive said it millions of times but worth saying it again. People need to put their butts in seats for the smaller corps instead of complaing.

And I have said this what seems like millions of times.

When DCI places corps into an essentially immutable placement order and segregates top corps from bottom corps (and for decades, it was the stated mission of DCI to segregate intentionally "to showcase the top corps"), more fan attention will go to the top corps by design.  The fans are not to blame for that.  If you are looking to place accountability, go to the second word in this paragraph.