UKBouldering.com

Climb Britain (Read 61694 times)

Will Hunt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Superworm is super-long
  • Posts: 7976
  • Karma: +631/-115
    • Unknown Stones
#175 Re: Climb Britain
September 06, 2016, 11:06:17 pm
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).

Interesting post Paul. I didn't realise you were in the room, you should have come and said hello!  :wave:

To address your points in turn. It's a fair point that I may have misjudged what I was hearing from those opposed to the proposals. We'll have to agree to disagree on whether the way in which the BMC went about things was democratic. I think the main thing that was botched was the communication in the press release and not being more specific about what the new brand might be when it was mooted at the area meets. The BMC have been fairly open in admitting that they made a mistake here. This in itself doesn't seem a good reason to oppose the plans though. There certainly were a number of hill walkers who said they didn't feel it represented them which is fair enough.

Good point about crag overuse and sport climbing. Kilnsey has obviously really suffered this year with parking. However, we should still encourage folk, regardless of their grade to spread out. It's obviously a bit trickier if you're operating in the high 8s but, whilst the crags may not always be as visually impressive, I'm not willing to accept that the harder routes (let's say high 7s to mid 8s) at Yew Cogar, Trow, Gigg North etc are all shit and not worth doing compared to those at Kilnsey and Malham. More likely I suspect that people enjoy the social scene at the busy crags, the convenience of getting a belay, availability of beta etc. I don't think the BMC is ever going to start actively discouraging people from going to these places, but perhaps by encouraging people to go somewhere new we could reduce the impact on the honeypots.

With regards to the Yorkshire BMC meetings, I haven't been to a great many, but those which I have been to over the years have been quite dry. You're spot on that the faces you'll see out sport climbing or bouldering definitely don't turn up. It's mainly the old guard. Having said all this, if the current Yorkshire scene did turn up I'm not sure what they would discuss. The most relevant thing I ever heard at a meeting was, I think (forgive me here, this was years ago and it's only half a memory and I'm probably imagining it), a discussion about (was it Nik?) screwing a crucial hold back onto a problem at mytholm steeps. I think the meeting decided that this wasn't really the done thing and that climbers should just accept that holds come off from time to time. You could easily say that this shows that the area meet didnt understand hard bouldering, sensitive crag caretaking, or the crag in question. It's hardly an issue that comes up regularly.

creedence

Offline
  • *
  • regular
  • Posts: 40
  • Karma: +6/-0
#176 Re: Climb Britain
September 07, 2016, 08:43:56 am
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).

My main issue with it is that if feels like it marks a change in priorities for the BMC.  I'm not saying I'm right in that thinking, but that's how it feels.
Any resources and man hours directed towards dealing with indoor/competition climbing, the Olympics, Sport England etc, have to take away from the conservation/access etc side of things?
These are the reasons why I'm a member.  If that's not the case, then I'm happy to be convinced otherwise by the BMC, but haven't been so far.

Secondly, it is a bit of a disregard for history, which is an important aspect of climbing for many, I'm sure.




tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#177 Re: Climb Britain
September 07, 2016, 09:15:11 am
It's interesting. I'm part of a long standing charity/organisation for my particular academic field. And it's re branded and done up its logo - but at its core it still bumbles along doing what it's always done. That's the problem - it's dying as it's not moving forwards or developing to the same level as other organisations.

I don't know enough about the BMC to make this a fair comparison.. But I wonder if this is the danger.

creedence

Offline
  • *
  • regular
  • Posts: 40
  • Karma: +6/-0
#178 Re: Climb Britain
September 07, 2016, 09:23:32 am
I did wonder this too, because if it was the case, then obviously a change was needed.  But googling found this article:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/participation-in-climbing-mountaineering

Quote
The latest Active People Survey (APS) results from Sport England suggests that around 211,000 people (aged 14+, living in England) go climbing or hill walking at least once a month and 84,000 take part at least once a week.

BMC membership has grown from a total of about 25,000 in 1990 to over 80,000 currently.  The number of individual members has more than doubled in recent years from 25,000 in 2000 to almost 55,000 today.

So it seems to be growing quite well, and seems to have a decent sign up ratio of people who go climbing once a week.  Which is actually pretty impressive.

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#179 Re: Climb Britain
September 07, 2016, 09:53:00 am
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).

My main issue with it is that if feels like it marks a change in priorities for the BMC.  I'm not saying I'm right in that thinking, but that's how it feels.
Any resources and man hours directed towards dealing with indoor/competition climbing, the Olympics, Sport England etc, have to take away from the conservation/access etc side of things?
These are the reasons why I'm a member.  If that's not the case, then I'm happy to be convinced otherwise by the BMC, but haven't been so far.

Secondly, it is a bit of a disregard for history, which is an important aspect of climbing for many, I'm sure.


Hi creedence,

To respond to your points I think there a lot of the kerfuffle stems from Members perhaps assuming that the BMC is still hat it was 10 or 15 years ago. Certainly there seems to be a disconnect from insiders (ie volunteers and staff) and the wider membership.

For me (I was on the Council for a short time) the name doesnt appear radical because it reasonably represented the BMC as I perceived it to be. When I found out about the name change I was a little non-plussed and thought that Dave and co were making life hard from themselves but otherwise had no strong opinion either way.

For me a name change is about as superficial as it gets but then I've never been big on symbolism. It certainly didnt seem as substantive an issue as many others voted on by National council where there has been no reaction by Area Meetings let alone the wider membership. I can therefore see why it was been treated as a decision taken, like many others, at National Council and wouldnty be anticipated as generating the hue and cry that it was. In fact they would have been assuming that the reaction for the most part would have been broadly positive. It is all very well saying in hindsight that it wasnt democratic but many decisions are taken by the elected representatives of the Board and National Council which, in my opinion, are more substantive and important than a bloody name change.

Turning to the point about priorities my experience is that the BMC deals with an extraordinarily wide variety of issues at National Council and the number of BMC Committess dealing with different aspects can be bewildering. There is no doubt that the BMC has become larger and more influential. Bigger doesnt always mean better but I think in this case it is. The larger and more infleuntial the BMC the more it can actually change things. For example this influence meant that it had an effect in lobbying for changes in the CROW act and the funds to buy and maintain crags like Longbridge and Horseshoe.

With respect to Comp Climbing and the Olympics I think that there is a strong case for creating a separate subsidiary or associated Governing body (perhaps named "Climb Britain"). This would provide more focus to this fast developing area. The fact that the BMC is a representative rather than governing body creates bureaucratic issues with competition rule setting etc (Graeme A can comment better). If anything I think this is what the debate should be about though the name change may be a catalyst for heightened awareness.

As a final point I would like vociferous dissenters for at least a second to put themselves in the shoes of the Officers and Volunteers whose efforts by the wider membership are largely unacknowledged and so can be forgiven for interpreting this as apathy especially given the poor turnout numbers at Area Meetings. So from having no feedback they are now getting largely negative feedback. Yes the Officers are salaried but they are still human.     

         



     

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#180 Re: Climb Britain
September 07, 2016, 10:04:39 am
It's interesting. I'm part of a long standing charity/organisation for my particular academic field. And it's re branded and done up its logo - but at its core it still bumbles along doing what it's always done. That's the problem - it's dying as it's not moving forwards or developing to the same level as other organisations.

I don't know enough about the BMC to make this a fair comparison.. But I wonder if this is the danger.


I think the converse is true with the BMC. It has changed and is progressive and the current name no longer fitted.

Will Hunt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Superworm is super-long
  • Posts: 7976
  • Karma: +631/-115
    • Unknown Stones
#181 Re: Climb Britain
September 07, 2016, 10:06:16 am
My main issue with it is that if feels like it marks a change in priorities for the BMC.  I'm not saying I'm right in that thinking, but that's how it feels.
Any resources and man hours directed towards dealing with indoor/competition climbing, the Olympics, Sport England etc, have to take away from the conservation/access etc side of things?
These are the reasons why I'm a member.  If that's not the case, then I'm happy to be convinced otherwise by the BMC, but haven't been so far.

When I first became aware of the BMC actively trying to engage more with hillwalkers and indoor/comp climbers, these were my thoughts also, but I am now happy that the BMC have not reduced their activities supporting rock climbers in their conservation and access efforts. Their still supporting independent guidebook production, they're still supporting local activists trying to secure access to new venues, and I overheard at the meeting that the BMC is in the final stages of completing a very significant crag purchase which will secure access there into the future. After the rebrand stuff had finished there was good chat about access at Blu Ska and Kilnsey. Somebody volunteered to organise a litter pick at Almscliff, specifically to try and drag all the old bottles and cans out of cracks at the top of the crag. It's all still going on. As Dan pointed out further up the thread, the BMC has been doing all this stuff for ages but just hasn't been getting wide recognition for it.


Secondly, it is a bit of a disregard for history, which is an important aspect of climbing for many, I'm sure.

I would look at it as just another chapter in the history of the organisation. Nobody is proposing that it is dissolved and everything that it did as the BMC be overturned and reversed. You can still purchase and read what looks like the UKs most tedious climbing publication, if you really want to:
http://www.bmcshop.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=5233

GraemeA

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1875
  • Karma: +80/-6
  • FTM
    • The Works, it's the Bollocks
#182 Re: Climb Britain
September 07, 2016, 11:35:34 am
Shark - the BMC is the NGB for (competitive) climbing, it is recognised as this by UK Sport and other parts of government. The BMC uses NGB or NRB (Nat Representative Body) as it sees fit depending upon who they are talking to.

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#183 Re: Climb Britain
September 07, 2016, 12:02:13 pm
Shark - the BMC is the NGB for (competitive) climbing, it is recognised as this by UK Sport and other parts of government. The BMC uses NGB or NRB (Nat Representative Body) as it sees fit depending upon who they are talking to.

OK. So the set up as it stands doesn't or isn't likely to be an impediment going forward if for example climbing becomes a fixture at the Olympics - yes?

Assuming yes do you see any merit in the BMC establishing a separate associated body to oversee and govern competition climbing? 

GraemeA

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1875
  • Karma: +80/-6
  • FTM
    • The Works, it's the Bollocks
#184 Re: Climb Britain
September 07, 2016, 12:14:50 pm
Shark - the BMC is the NGB for (competitive) climbing, it is recognised as this by UK Sport and other parts of government. The BMC uses NGB or NRB (Nat Representative Body) as it sees fit depending upon who they are talking to.

OK. So the set up as it stands doesn't or isn't likely to be an impediment going forward if for example climbing becomes a fixture at the Olympics - yes?

Assuming yes do you see any merit in the BMC establishing a separate associated body to oversee and govern competition climbing?

My feeling is that if climbing gets permanent program status there is a significant risk that comps will become the focus for the BMC - logically they would have to if you look at things like the Olympic Charter. So yes, I think that a new body needs creating as the BMC's main focus must be access. The Austrian model seems a good one, the OWEK (comp body) is a member of the OAV (Alpine Club).

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#185 Re: Climb Britain
September 07, 2016, 12:30:35 pm
Shark - the BMC is the NGB for (competitive) climbing, it is recognised as this by UK Sport and other parts of government. The BMC uses NGB or NRB (Nat Representative Body) as it sees fit depending upon who they are talking to.

OK. So the set up as it stands doesn't or isn't likely to be an impediment going forward if for example climbing becomes a fixture at the Olympics - yes?

Assuming yes do you see any merit in the BMC establishing a separate associated body to oversee and govern competition climbing?

My feeling is that if climbing gets permanent program status there is a significant risk that comps will become the focus for the BMC - logically they would have to if you look at things like the Olympic Charter. So yes, I think that a new body needs creating as the BMC's main focus must be access. The Austrian model seems a good one, the OWEK (comp body) is a member of the OAV (Alpine Club).

Ok. But that is down the line and not a certainty so we can park that one for the time being then.

Thanks Graeme

Offwidth

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1767
  • Karma: +57/-13
    • Offwidth
#186 Re: Climb Britain
September 07, 2016, 12:40:51 pm
You can still purchase and read what looks like the UKs most tedious climbing publication, if you really want to:
http://www.bmcshop.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=5233

That book is pretty tedious and in terms of history quite a few have told me it leaves out detail on a lot of the key controversial issues ....as such it looks a bit too much like an approved marketing puff piece. Then we had the BMC Peak Limestone Wye Valley guide debacle in the history volume. A 'history aint what it used to be' attitude looks rose tinted to me.

Paul B

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 9626
  • Karma: +264/-4
#187 Re: Climb Britain
September 07, 2016, 12:43:21 pm
Interesting post Paul. I didn't realise you were in the room, you should have come and said hello!  :wave:

Apologies, I was a bit pushed for time and post re-branding I focussed solely on my intake of chips before driving back.

Quote
Good point about crag overuse and sport climbing. Kilnsey has obviously really suffered this year with parking. However, we should still encourage folk, regardless of their grade to spread out. It's obviously a bit trickier if you're operating in the high 8s but, whilst the crags may not always be as visually impressive, I'm not willing to accept that the harder routes (let's say high 7s to mid 8s) at Yew Cogar, Trow, Gigg North etc are all shit and not worth doing compared to those at Kilnsey and Malham. More likely I suspect that people enjoy the social scene at the busy crags, the convenience of getting a belay, availability of beta etc. I don't think the BMC is ever going to start actively discouraging people from going to these places, but perhaps by encouraging people to go somewhere new we could reduce the impact on the honeypots.

You can sum all of this up as convenience and the other places you mention for one reason or another are less so (convenient) i.e. conditions (seepage), conditions (in rain), location, access (i.e. walk-ins) etc.. However, sure it's not a bad thing to remind people of other crags I just feel the factors listed will severely limit the impact of such a 'campaign'. As an example one particular Kilnsey regular has been trying to get something finished at Yew throughout this season and every Saturday it tends to rain on his plans.

Quote
With regards to the Yorkshire BMC meetings, I haven't been to a great many, but those which I have been to over the years have been quite dry. You're spot on that the faces you'll see out sport climbing or bouldering definitely don't turn up. It's mainly the old guard. Having said all this, if the current Yorkshire scene did turn up I'm not sure what they would discuss.

No idea, but an ageing (sorry) demographic isn't a good thing. I'd take a guess that club memberships are also going the same way?

Will Hunt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Superworm is super-long
  • Posts: 7976
  • Karma: +631/-115
    • Unknown Stones
#188 Re: Climb Britain
September 07, 2016, 01:42:22 pm
No idea, but an ageing (sorry) demographic isn't a good thing. I'd take a guess that club memberships are also going the same way?

There definitely is a problem with this for the clubs. The YMC, which has such a crucial role in custody of new routes info and guidebook production, is really struggling for new members. In my view, part of their problem is the slightly prohibitive (yet perfectly normal and understandable for a hut owning club) joining process, and their ageing demographic. They do run a number of meets but I think they tend to be walking and they struggle with attendance. I don't think a great deal of climbing goes on on club trips any more.
On the other hand, the LMC have a very active meets programme with Tuesday night climbing each week through the summer and trips away every 3rd week or so. They don't seem to struggle to attract new members. It's a circular thing. Active meets programme = plenty of new members joining = well attended meets = active meets programme etc etc. Once this process stalls it's very difficult to jump start it.
I joined the LMC in the spring because i wanted to broaden my pool of partners to go trad climbing with. It's been a great excuse to get out every Tuesday and do trips to Tremadog, Gogarth, Pembroke etc. It's been great fun and I've done more trad in the past summer than I've probably done in the past 2-3 years. The standard of climbing in the club generally runs up to e2 but I've not struggled to get a belay on anything I've wanted to get on.

The downside is that if you want to take advantage of the wider pool of partners, you do need to submit to going to whatever crag the club is going to. This is less likely attractive to people climbing harder who are more likely to have very specific objectives.

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#189 Re: Climb Britain
September 07, 2016, 02:21:29 pm
From people I've know in / associated with the LMC for a number of years, its demographic shifted to the younger side about 10-12 years ago - and has carried on that way since. Cycles innit.

r-man

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Glory lurks beneath the moss
  • Posts: 5030
  • Karma: +193/-3
    • LANCASHIRE BOULDERING GUIDEBOOK
#190 Re: Climb Britain
September 07, 2016, 02:35:54 pm
LMC also does very popular progression to rock intro days, which draw a lot of climbers outside for the first time. Lots of them join up following those days I think.

Will Hunt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Superworm is super-long
  • Posts: 7976
  • Karma: +631/-115
    • Unknown Stones
#191 Re: Climb Britain
September 07, 2016, 02:57:54 pm
Is that the Lancs MC or the Leeds MC, Robin? I'm on about the Leeds one. But either way, yes, most clubs do seem to be very popular with new climbers. Is it quite rare for "good" climbers (whatever that might mean!) to be active and involved in a club scene? Why is this? Is it a bad thing?

Getting a bit off topic here but it's sort of relevant to the discussion about which climbers get involved in climbing "activism" and in what way they do this.

r-man

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Glory lurks beneath the moss
  • Posts: 5030
  • Karma: +193/-3
    • LANCASHIRE BOULDERING GUIDEBOOK
#192 Re: Climb Britain
September 07, 2016, 07:46:22 pm
Yeah, I meant the Lancs lot. They seem to be thriving.

Will Hunt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Superworm is super-long
  • Posts: 7976
  • Karma: +631/-115
    • Unknown Stones
#193 Re: Climb Britain
September 08, 2016, 04:22:02 pm
Cut and pasted minutes from the Yorkshire meeting:

Quote
Rebrand proposal.
Overall concern re lack of communication with members.
Some support for the rebrand but general view that ‘BMC’ is a strong brand & doesn’t need to change.
Several views that ‘Climb Britain’ is not attractive to hill walkers

Votes re the specific questions as follows:-
Remain as BMC – no rebrand – 8 votes
Full rebrand to Climb Britain – 11 votes
Stay as BMC & find other use for Climb Britain – 35 votes
Other name options – 5 votes

Attendees able to vote for as few/many of the options as they wished. Please see pages 2 & 3 re comments made.

Quote
BMC Yorkshire Area Meeting 5 September 2016.
Discussion of Rebranding proposal – Comments made


Lack of specific objectives against which to measure success of proposal.

Many comments re the lack of consultation with members including some specific feedback from those whose clubs had

consulted their members.

One respondent’s club (national with a lot of members) had consulted its members & virtually none were in favour of the

rebrand.

Observation that Mountaineering Scotland had asked its members first re its rebrand & received few objections – felt to

be because the members had had the opportunity to comment. In the case of the BMC’s rebrand proposal it was seen as

having gone through Exec Committee & NC & the members haven’t had the opportunity to comment.

Query re may/may not go to AGM – Dave Turnbull clarified that it may not go to the AGM as NC may have thrown it out

by then.

Specific comment re the role of Areas, Area NC Reps & NC in facilitating consultation with members.

A few comments re hill walkers not identifying with the word ‘climb’.

One comments from a young man who said he’d just finished school to say that he doesn’t agree with the prevailing

opinion of a disconnect with the BMC for young people.

? financial justification for rebrand.

Several comments that the BMC is a strong brand & doesn’t need to change.

Concern that rebrand was presented as a done deal.

Losing the word ‘mountaineering’ is a bad thing.

Several comments that Climb Britain is a great strap line

Don’t like name or understand the logic. Seems climbing focussed. (This from someone who is a climber & hill walker)

The issue re non members isn’t with the name rather how to persuade indoor climbers that they need to join a

climbing/mountaineering organisation.

Climb Britain not attractive to hill walkers & won’t attract them.

Climb Britain logo looks very weak compared to the strong BMC logo.

The most important goals of the BMC should be to conserve & protect the outdoors/mountains & secure access to

mountains & crags. In this context not sure about the focus on attracting indoor climbers – they are sometimes

indoors/gym type of people. (This from someone who is a climber & hill walkers & uses indoor walls). However can see

the desire to reinvent & be more modern & so despite reservations would probably accept rebrand.

New name could appeal to a wider audience but hate the font.

Three opinions that the way the rebrand has been handled has not been good but that the proposal is a good one. One

of the three said it’s time for a change & to just go for it.

One comment re the use of a verb – climb – rather than a noun eg climbing – comparison with other sporting bodies.

One comment that a lot of members are entering climbing via bouldering walls. It is desirable to be able to reach them

from an educational perspective.

BMC has a strong image & does much good work.

The name BMC is a strong one with gravitas & more influential in discussions with landowners, official bodies etc

Branding is very important but needs to be very specific. If Climb Britain & its variants were adopted the names would

need to be used under the BMC umbrella. The name BMC has gravitas.

3

BMC has changed a lot in its 70 years & while not saying it needs to change it is timely to look at profile, demography &

branding. However it was wrong to keep rebrand details secret for the various commercial reasons. If there had been

prior consultation there would have been a much different response. Ambivalent re Climb Britain name. Happy with logo.

Does what it say on the tin.

Rebrand needed – Olympics, more climbers via indoor walls, possible reductions in Sport England grant to BMC, growing

sport etc. If BMC does nothing there is a serious risk of becoming less relevant & less influential. Wrong to stay

stationary & not move on. Happy to put trust in elected & appointed officials. Can’t put everything to plebiscite.

Don’t mind Climb Britain. Walked up Pen Y Ghent today & saw several families who will feel they had ‘climbed’ it.

Main feedback from one respondent’s club was consultation problem. Is the BMC getting dragged into the fashion of

rebranding? Stick with what we’ve got. Likes logo & perhaps that could be used for some specific promotion.

highrepute

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1288
  • Karma: +109/-0
  • Blah
#194 Re: Climb Britain
September 08, 2016, 10:44:36 pm
How long was this meeting will and how many people were in attendance. Gonna be pretty epic if everyone gets a say at the peak area meet.

Will Hunt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Superworm is super-long
  • Posts: 7976
  • Karma: +631/-115
    • Unknown Stones
#195 Re: Climb Britain
September 09, 2016, 08:14:57 am
About 36 people there judging by the vote numbers. Total meeting went from half 7 to half 9 which included the usual the usual chat about access etc.

dave

  • Guest
#196 Re: Climb Britain
September 09, 2016, 08:48:50 am
I think the Peak chair is gonna have to keep shit moving at next weeks meeting - on the other hand, if as is suggested above the climb britain idea is now seen internally as a dead duck then there might not even be much need to debate the tits off it.

Paul B

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 9626
  • Karma: +264/-4
#197 Re: Climb Britain
September 09, 2016, 10:32:25 am
A quick vote following the presentation (to gauge feeling) might save you all a very long evening!

cofe

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5796
  • Karma: +187/-5
#198 Re: Climb Britain
September 09, 2016, 10:41:37 am
I'd like to think important stuff like access will still take priority.

duncan

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2952
  • Karma: +332/-2
#199 Re: Climb Britain
September 09, 2016, 11:22:08 am
Will, thanks for this.

I don’t know Dave Turnbull but I’m sorry to hear how bruised he seems. I think the BMC has developed greatly and positively under his watch during a period of rapid change within climbing. It’s a hugely positive force in British climbing. Highlights include the recent guidebooks, the mostly well-judged media work, and helping keeping this place going. The access work is of course invaluable, look at how screwed US climbers are in comparison. This is not only because of the BMC but they play a big part.
 
I'm interested to read about the interest and attendance at the area meetings. I couldn't get to the London one but, as I said before, past experience has not been positive. Most London climbers are young and wall-focused, locals only in the sense of the climbing wall they frequent, so the concept a meeting orientated around local issues doesn't work here in my view and should not be an important part of the consultation process.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 11:27:23 am by duncan »

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal