[johnx2]

http://www.googlefight.co.uk/mountain+walking-vs-mountain+climbing.php

[shark]

Drop it guys, did you read Shark's post? The rebrand got a DAMN NEAR STANDING OVATION at a meeting. There's no way we can counter reasoning as robust as that with something as flimsy as, say, facts.

Nicely taken out of context Dave. 

I mentioned that as Tom said that insiders were the best judge of what was right. See below:

I can see the attraction of free marketing consultation and a new logo/re-brand, but no-one understands an organisation better than those within it and you need to have the confidence to say "sorry guys, thanks but that's not quite right".

I was with you till this bit. Clearly Dave and Alex(The BMC Marketing Manager)  understand the organisation as do the various veteran volunteer representatives at the National Council who uncharacteristically gave it close to a standing ovation when Dave presented the consultants proposals at the National Council Meeting.

[danm]

Dave, what facts are you talking about exactly?

My take on things (personal, not official in any way)

As an employee of said organisation, the rebrand (if it happens now) isn't going to make much, if any difference to me or my work. It also won't make any difference over whether or not I, as an individual, go out tomorrow, take my brain out and die soloing at Stanage thus maintaining the finest traditions of our sport. Or survive, whatever. It'll just help make the organisation more accessible to those who aren't yet climbers.

[dave]

It'll just help make the organisation more accessible to those who aren't yet climbers.

How? Shark has already said the BMC won't change what it does. Are you really inundated with people who would love to join or engage with the BMC but say they are put off specifically by the wording of the title of the organisation?

[dave]

Drop it guys, did you read Shark's post? The rebrand got a DAMN NEAR STANDING OVATION at a meeting. There's no way we can counter reasoning as robust as that with something as flimsy as, say, facts.

Nicely taken out of context Dave. 

Sorry, out of context?

[lagerstarfish]

It'll just help make the organisation more accessible to those who aren't yet climbers.

How? Shark has already said the BMC won't change what it does. Are you really inundated with people who would love to join or engage with the BMC but say they are put off specifically by the wording of the title of the organisation?

In Post-Brexit Britain, people will not have easy access to the Alps, Pyrenees etc., so will be more limited to climbing in Britain. There are no mountains in Britain, so not even the most tick-greedy hill walker would want to join a club that seems like it is about conquering British Mountains. However, due to flexible use of language and indoor walls, there is plenty of "climbing" in Britain - loads of "climb" to be ticked in Britain. That's what people want out of a club.

[danm]

It'll just help make the organisation more accessible to those who aren't yet climbers.

How? Shark has already said the BMC won't change what it does. Are you really inundated with people who would love to join or engage with the BMC but say they are put off specifically by the wording of the title of the organisation?

I think you're wilfully missing the point/picking a fight but I'll bite anyway 

I mean accessible in the way that if I say ParkRun, anyone can have a pretty good stab at guessing what that might involve, without being into running, or parks. That isn't the case with "The BMC". Climb Britain gives a better clue as to what we do, at least to me.  Personally, I'm not really that bothered whatever way it goes, but I can see the positive reasons for doing it. Climbing will always have an anarchic side, a new logo isn't going to change that.

[chris j]

Probably already been said, but as you're talking about inclusiveness. Climb Britain doesn't exactly sound friendly to the hill walking masses that were mentioned high up the thread. TBH, if I saw an advert for Climb Britain, my first thought would be it was a charity indoor climbathon or similar, certainly not a governing body. I would have to question the worth of the £25 grand of work donated to the BMC for this...

As for ParkRun, it's an organisation with a very limited remit, isn't it? You turn up at a park and run, the BMC is about more than just climbing, no?

[Oldmanmatt]

So...

We're looking at:

Climb Walk Run Ski Mountaineer (and any other) Britain?

??


Neither BMC nor Climb Britain, explicitly name or include all the different aspects of their domain.
So?
Do we have to get all German about it and come up with some epic Portmanteau?

Both work, Climb Britain is slightly catchier and less formal. It has a less stuffy overtone than anything that involves the word "Council".



All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. Looking at you, here, Dense. 

[Will Hunt]

Is it too late for a moderator to turn this thread into a poll? I'd be interested to know how many people think the following:

1. I am not opposed to a change in brand and I like the proposed Climb Britain brand.

2. I am not opposed to a change in brand and I like the proposed Climb Britain brand, but I think the way the BMC has got there is undemocratic.

3. I am not opposed to a change in brand but I do not like the proposed Climb Britain brand.

4. I am not opposed to a change in brand but I do not like the proposed Climb Britain brand, and I think the way the BMC has gone about this is undemocratic.

5. I am opposed to a change in brand.

6. I am opposed to a change in brand and I think the way the BMC has gone about this is undemocratic.


I think, from what I've read, that everybody seems to fit into one of those 6 pigeonholes.

[iain]

Climb Britain doesn't exactly sound friendly to the hill walking masses that were mentioned high up the thread.

We're particular about using the word climb for anything other than climbing. Don't know why I remember this but Ed Byrne mentioned our sniffyness about the term in an interview, skip to 5:00
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16209872

Context is important, like Rodma I've frequently heard climbing used in reference to walking up hills in Scotland, I've not heard it used in the peak.

When I first heard about the proposed name I thought it was bollocks, I've changed my mind.
There was a focused piece of work that concluded the name resonated with a variety of outdoor activities and was more recognisable to the uninitiated, I'd take that over us lot being sniffy about climbing meaning climbing.

[shark]

Will I'm off out so not got time but personally not going to make a final decision till I've heard what people have to say at the Area Meet. A poll should reflect those still on the fence and those disinterested

[Will Hunt]

I'm dreading this area meet. A confusing disarray of nuanced opinions, slinging shit at any BMC representative that shows up is my guess.

[tomtom]

I am opposed to numbeover-caffeinated sugary drink companyet points.

[tomtom]

I am opposed to numbeover-caffeinated sugary drink companyet points.

Ha quality! I wrote I am opposed to number based bullet points...

[SA Chris]

That's funny.

What would happen if i wrote desiover-caffeinated sugary drink companyshit?

[SA Chris]

[highrepute]

Right I'm having a go.

Climbing is used a lot to refer to things that aren't rock climbing. My nanna said last week "I've been climbing the fells since I was 4". Dave's stubbornness on this is commendable.

Still hillwalkers are not going to be drawn to something called Climbed Britain. which i gather is no change from now when they're not drawn to The BMC and what the letters stand for.

New climbers (rock, indoor) are less likely to understand that The BMC is for them than Climb Britain. Certainly I thought The BMC was not for me as a young climber going to stanage.

Climb Britain doesn't sound unprofessional to me. We are in the era when Team GB, Sport England, InnovateUK, Catapult, BiS are acceptable names for respected bodies. (in the same vein b-focused and ThinkFarm shouldn't be existing off public money, I'm assuming this is the tip of a large iceberg of rebranding/markets shite they've done for "free")

I feel like undemocratic is a bit unfair. It was decided at the AGM which all members are invited and encouraged to attend. Should maybe have been mentioned at the local area meets but then I didn't go to the most recent one and it was mentioned at the one before (but only in passing).

I don't have much beef with the new name or logo. I think I'm leaning toward Climb Britain being the indoor/competition/young person arm of The BMC.

[kelvin]

Right I'm having a go.


 I think I'm leaning toward Climb Britain being the indoor/competition/young person arm of The BMC.

I think Climb Britain is a far more inclusive name than the BMC and that's good enough for me.

I was walking in the mountains, scrambling, pretty sure I'd had a crack at the Cuillin Ridge and even been to the Canadian Rockies and had a go at ice climbing inside a glacier before I'd ever heard of the BMC. It was the usual thing of needing insurance for a 5000m summit in Iran that brought them to my attention.

This doesn't seem to be happening so much anymore, people come outdoors having a background of climbing or bouldering indoors, at least that seems to be the case round my way, Northampton.

[Will Hunt]

Yorkshire area meet last night. Well attended but not heaving. There was the usual skew in demographic, with most there I would say being 40+, but good to hear from a number of younger members whom I didn't recognise (not that I am at all a regular attendee).

We heard from Dave Turnbull who very clearly described the rationale behind the rebrand and the "journey" as it were up to present day.
We then proceeded around the room in a very orderly fashion with each member giving their views in turn. This meant I had the fortunate position of hearing all but one opinion before saying my own piece which allowed me to offer counter-arguments to some of what I'd heard - a privilege obviously not available to those who spoke first.

A show of hands was then taken (with members allowed to vote for more than one option) to get a feel for the numbers in favour of the following options (I'm paraphrasing slightly):
1. Put Climb Britain in the bin and remain as The BMC.
2. Adopt Climb Britain fully as originally planned.
3. Remain as The BMC but use Climb Britain in some other way (what that may be is anyone's guess).
4. Come up with another plan entirely.

Notably, the opinion amongst the people who I would consider to be Yorkshire's "old guard" of long-time-served activists was split. Dave Musgrove (ex BMC president) spoke enthusiastically for the proposals, as did Nigel Baker and others. Paul Clarke, Angela Soper and others not so keen.

In order of popularity, with most popular first, I'd say the votes were as followed: 3 (by a considerable margin, only one person in the room not supporting this option), 1, 2, 4.

From listening to Dave and speaking with him a little before and after, I'd say that it's fairly clear that a full rebrand will not be going ahead. Not because this is what Dave has said, but because he sounds not so much like a man embattled, but a man defeated. I think that's a shame because it sounds as though, for many people within the BMC and some important people out of it, the writing has been on the wall for a while now that the current name is causing the BMC to miss out on opportunities and engaging new members. Whilst it was noted that there was more positive feedback about the rebrand at the Yorkshire meeting than at others, the overall tone in the room was not supportive of the rebrand.

This may be impertinent of me, but the impression that I got from those dissenting was that they didn't like the rebrand because they didn't recognise the imperative to change, and thus were resistant to what they saw as a change for the sake of change.

A brief summary of my own opinion as given at the meeting (which I don't really have time to put into nice prose!):
 
1. The Olympics is coming. People increasingly get into climbing outdoors through indoor climbing. We know that indoor climbers do not see the BMC as being relevant to them and are unlikely to already be engaged with it as and when they move to outdoor climbing. The BMC budget is likely to be slashed significantly due to a reduction in governmental funding. Ergo, there is an imperative to sign up more members in order to carry on the scope of works that the BMC currently provides (and it's a mighty big scope).

2. If the BMC does nothing, they run a serious risk of becoming less relevant in modern climbing and thus less influential. The whole point of the BMC is to help climbers be influential and punch above their weight in the wider world.

3. Somebody had mentioned the idea that we need fewer people on the crags as they're being hammered and you have to queue for routes etc etc. I think we do need to grow the sport and get more people climbing, but we do need to get better at spreading ourselves thinner. Look at the state of Guisecliff, parts of Eavestone, most of Borrowdale etc etc etc.

4. I'm concerned that Dave sounds like a broken man. The BMC has put a lot of work into this and believes there is a clear reason for change. There will always be a good deal of inertia amongst the members of an organisation. There will also be lots of bias in the room as people are more likely to turn up and express a view if they are against the proposals.

5. Is "Climb" relevant to hillwalkers? Yes. It is not uncommon to hear people referring to themselves as climbing the three peaks/Mam Tor etc.

6. Rather than do nothing, the BMC should consider a dual brand, with different activities within the organisation being done under

7. I think the process has been reasonable and democratic. The plans were discussed at National Council and were mooted at area meetings (albeit without specifics). At least 2 people in the room cited Brexit as a good example of a change being implemented when things would be better left as they are. I turned this round and said that I'm quite happy at times for appointed and elected officials who are in full possession of the facts to make decisions on my behalf. In this case, the BMC is opening the floor to everybody who cares to have an opinion and I think the outcome will be a less informed one.

Soz if that makes no sense whatsoever. It was quite hurriedly scribbled out.

[andy popp]

Thanks Will. I have really struggled to care about/have an opinion on this issue but that post was really helpful in putting the whole issue in perspective and showing why it might matter. For what it's worth, dual branding seems like a really good way forward.

[Johnny Brown]

Good post Will. The sensible option for me is to use the Climb Britain brand for the indoor/ comps/ outreach arm. I believe the SMC are already doing something similar.

My main concern is Thinkfarm sounds worryingly like it is owned by Doug Rocket. It DT wants to swing the masses he needs to convince us this was not tossed off over lunch by a bunch of guys in tiny bowler hats.

[Paul B]

This may be impertinent of me, but the impression that I got from those dissenting was that they didn't like the rebrand because they didn't recognise the imperative to change, and thus were resistant to what they saw as a change for the sake of change.

Sorry to pick at you here Will but that wasn't the impression I got (and I'd be surprised if the minutes read that way); there was a clear and repeated message from the 'dissenters' that there was a lack of open consultation (standard 'process' wasn't followed with regards to open discussion (i.e. nobody was aware of 'Climb Britain'; for good reason it turns out) at area meets and escalation thereafter etc.) and that for those who classed themselves as hill walkers or mountaineers (including the Yorkshire hillwalking rep!) didn't feel 'Climb Britain' represented them very well.

3. Somebody had mentioned the idea that we need fewer people on the crags as they're being hammered and you have to queue for routes etc etc. I think we do need to grow the sport and get more people climbing, but we do need to get better at spreading ourselves thinner. Look at the state of Guisecliff, parts of Eavestone, most of Borrowdale etc etc etc.

...and sport climbing? Come on, there are no new Kilnsey/Malham quality crags overgrown and neglected within shooting distance of Leeds and you'll never stop honey-potting (unless you know something I don't). I think its a fair concern that 'grass roots mass participation' (BMC aritcle) that leads to further pressure on popular crags (as clearly demonstrated this year) isn't a good thing for existing climbers (it's certainly one that I share). The response I've had from others on this point is "go somewhere else". If that were the attitude of my representative organisation I'd be pretty hacked off (or are you suggesting any newly courted climbers should head out to search out esoterica)?

Rather than tit for tat opinions on the above Dave clarified that the BMC don't actively seek to encourage participation (although Sport England would like them to) but any efforts to enhance the brand ore re-brand in turn make it more accessible and it's likely to have that effect (although the size of such an effect can't be quantified).

Regardless of my own perception of the 're-brand', the area meet did make me think long and hard about the BMC and how they operate and it seems a bit stuck in the past.

A few years ago I made comment on this forum that the Peak area meet didn't seem to represent what I thought of as a large cross section of climbers. Johnny Brown responded at the time saying it was as good as you could hope for (and in hindsight I think he was right). To me (with only 1 Yorks. area meet under my belt) Yorkshire looked worse and there wasn't a single face I recognise from my summer climbing which consists of 3 times a week (since Apr) on the Yorkshire lime (and I've been seeing some of these faces since I was in my teens). I find that a bit disconcerting and wonder why the BMC first don't try to attract these climbers rather than the THINKFARM demographic described.

I can't help but feel that if Dave/the BMC had produced a video of his presentation that the reach would be far greater than the ~35 that attended last night and if the BMC want to engage the younger (dare I say indoor) generation it'd be worth looking long and hard at how they communicate and appeal to these people (far more than just a snappy name).

[tomtom]

Why are some folk so worked up about the name change? (Genuine question - I can't really see why it would be detrimental to the organisation).

[chris j]

It's exactly what you'd expect from an organisation who themselves 'Thinkfarm'...? Suggests they don't think far out of their own box. I'm just a reactionary and grumpy old git but for me it just sounds simplistic and rather stupid.