[Duncan campbell]

I'm becoming ambivalent about the name change already, after initial kneejerk "that's shit" reaction. I still think the new logo is terrible though, hopefully it can be updated regularly?

+1

[36chambers]

I'm becoming ambivalent about the name change already, after initial kneejerk "that's shit" reaction. I still think the new logo is terrible though, hopefully it can be updated regularly?

+1

I'm already over it.

[tomtom]

I think they should have a mascot

[danm]

Yep, sounds like it's a huge amount of good work. Do the BMC act as the central coordinator for all of that?

Yeah. The work on the ground is done by area youth co-ordinators, local volunteers and involves lots of goodwill from the walls involved, but this all needs managing, promoting etc. We provide support such as child protection training, all kinds of stuff. As I said, not my area but it is quite astonishing the breadth of different things we're involved with.

[galpinos]

I'm becoming ambivalent about the name change already, after initial kneejerk "that's shit" reaction. I still think the new logo is terrible though, hopefully it can be updated regularly?

+3, though the name is still weak and the logo and font terrible. I like the tagline.

The outrage on the other channel that "the membership were not consulted" is getting quite comical, it seems that post EU referendum, we seems to think we have to vote on everything (despite the obvious consequences of havbing a public vote - Brexit and Boaty McBoatFace).

I still don't really get why the re-brand is necessary. The BMC's biggest mistake is admitting to the involvement of B-Focused and Thinkfarm......

[rginns]

It strikes me as all marketing bollocks, of course the marketing company involved will have a detailed demographic commercial justification for the change, they're a marketing company! and this would also ....justify their own existence... hmmm.
I don't see anything wrong or old fashioned with the BMC as a brand, especially the recognisable BMC logo, I agree with comments about not even thinking about a council. I'm always surprised about organisations that have an obsession with relevance.

It's just a bit fashionable and unnecessary.. And the logo is toss and will be out of date in a hot minute.

Reminds me of two things:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/salford-university-spends-132k-on-logo-678971

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2764832/Consignia-name-lost-in-post-as-Royal-Mail-returns.html

[galpinos]

 That "University of Salford Manchester" was a gem

[SA Chris]

Boaty McBoatFace

Actually Climby McMountainFace would be genius.

[rginns]

That "University of Salford Manchester" was a gem

The best bit was the justification that they wanted to make it easier for people to work out where it was.

... that'll be Salford then, right?   ....errr

Jokes!

[Will Hunt]

Just my thoughts:

Personally I don't have a problem with a change of name per se, nor do I have a problem with the BMC seeking free (or even paid for) advice from a marketing company. Regardless that we might like to make fun of beanbag-sitting, beard-cultivating, lens-less glasses-wearing, hipster types who do this sort of thing for a living, they do tend to get results. You only need to look at the world around us to see how powerful a tool marketing can be.

I can see why the BMC have gone for a rebrand. The word Council conjures images of old farts sitting round a circular table making long sermons about the vagaries of bolted climbing, or deciding who should go on a quest. Since the BMC has broadened its scope to include hillwalking (something I'm still not convinced is a good idea), indoor climbing, and competition climbing, it seems inevitable that a change in the name would be in the offing. In a Venn diagram of words and what activities fit within them, "Climbing" excludes the hillwalkers and snowplodders, and "Mountaineering" excludes the indoor climbing lot.

If it had been up to me I would have gone with British Mountaineering and Climbing. It would have retained the current logo and much of the brand of being colloquially known as The BMC (which I think is strong and well liked). It would have been inclusive of all the things the BMC want to be involved with, and it would have udged the perceived function of the organisation towards its growing role in competition and indoor climbing by piggy-backing on the well-used formula adopted by British Cycling, British Swimming etc. Climb Britain sounds clumsy and doesn't make it clear that the organisation is there to represent or govern hillwalkers or climbers. Sounds like a charity event to me.

My main concern with the BMC's broadening scope is that they are properly resourced to take on the extra work. The BMC does such good work in terms of access, supporting guidebook production etc that I don't want them to divert attention away from this as they do different things. As it is, "Climb Britain" lacks the gravitas that I think would be useful in access negotiations and influencing external bodies. I don't see any reason why the BMC can't operate two brands at once, keeping Climb Britain for the new trendy stuff, and The BMC for the nitty gritty access stuff. I hope this is how they proceed.

One of the key issues that was raised on UKC was that people felt they had been left out of the decision making process. I don't agree that this is the case. It was discussed at area meetings (and I can understand perfectly why they didn't say what the name would be at these meetings) and voted on at national council. All democratic stuff. Not every decision can or should be thrown open to a plebiscite. Online forums are not the places to get hysteria-free, rational decision making.

Engagement at local meetings is something that the BMC could potentially improve upon. I am a highly irregular attendee to my local meeting in Yorkshire. If I ever do go then I am generally the youngest there by at least 10 years, if not more often 20 years. The people who regularly attend the meeting are what you might call the "old guard" of climbing in Yorkshire and they're still out there now maintaining, caring for, and developing the crags. We can't expect them to do it forever, and the reins will need to be passed over at some point. I'm not sure how we get more young people involved in the BMC meets. Perhaps moving the meeting location to be in Leeds or closer to Leeds? What would go on the agenda to make it relevant to a new generation of climbers? Is there anything that can be done about this? Since 90% of climbers in Yorkshire seem to go only to Almscliff, Caley, Ilkley, and (if they're feeling adventurous) Brimham, then much of what is discussed at area meets is not going to be relevant.

[Paul B]

All paid for by Sport England who encourage "grass roots, mass participation..." according to the BMC article:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/climb-britain-the-facts

So I'd ask, in this instance, what's in it for SE and is the trade-off worth it (both to the BMC and their members)?

...there's no such thing as a free lunch!

[JamieG]

That "University of Salford Manchester" was a gem

The best bit was the justification that they wanted to make it easier for people to work out where it was.

... that'll be Salford then, right?   ....errr

Jokes!

I work at Salford Uni and most people here think it was 100% about encouraging overseas students. Manchester is well know internationally (i.e. Man U, music scene etc.) Salford is pretty much unknown outside of UK.

[rginns]

That "University of Salford Manchester" was a gem

The best bit was the justification that they wanted to make it easier for people to work out where it was.

... that'll be Salford then, right?   ....errr

Jokes!

I work at Salford Uni and most people here think it was 100% about encouraging overseas students. Manchester is well know internationally (i.e. Man U, music scene etc.) Salford is pretty much unknown outside of UK.

I can believe it, and it's understandable.

It's important for any business to attract as many new customers as possible 

[danm]

The benefit for us is we become more visible outside our core market, which potentially means more members. Climb Britain is more obvious to those outside the inner circle, and it's those people SE want to connect to sport. Think of the success of ParkRun - the name immediately connects for somebody who's never gone running before. FRA doesn't have the same ring to it.

About the Salford/Manchester thing - it's about perspective. You can look inward and decide it most important to re-affirm that Salford is distinct from Manchester, or you can make sure people know you are part of the thriving metropolitan Manchester area and therefore much more attractive to study or invest in.

[JamieG]

That "University of Salford Manchester" was a gem

The best bit was the justification that they wanted to make it easier for people to work out where it was.

... that'll be Salford then, right?   ....errr

Jokes!

I work at Salford Uni and most people here think it was 100% about encouraging overseas students. Manchester is well know internationally (i.e. Man U, music scene etc.) Salford is pretty much unknown outside of UK.

I can believe it, and it's understandable.

It's important for any business to attract as many new customers as possible 

Spot on!

[SA Chris]

Reminds me of two things:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/salford-university-spends-132k-on-logo-678971

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2764832/Consignia-name-lost-in-post-as-Royal-Mail-returns.html

There have been worse;

http://www.canny-creative.com/2013/10/10-rebranding-failures-how-much-they-cost/

[SA Chris]

Since 90% of climbers in Yorkshire seem to go only to Almscliff, Caley, Ilkley, and (if they're feeling adventurous) Brimham

+ Kilnsey, Malham and (if they are feeling adventurous) Goredale too?

[Paul B]

The benefit for us is we become more visible outside our core market, which potentially means more members. Climb Britain is more obvious to those outside the inner circle, and it's those people SE want to connect to sport. Think of the success of ParkRun - the name immediately connects for somebody who's never gone running before. FRA doesn't have the same ring to it.

More members from people that already partake or more members? If the latter, why is this seen as a good thing for your current membership base? I know your personal feelings along the lines of it's so good I want everyone to experience it but I'd imagine that sentiment won't be entirely shared between all members.

And yes, I'm playing devil's advocate a bit.

[danm]

Both. More members means more heft when it comes to getting what you want for a start. Anyway, I'm a bit Climb Britain'd out - I suggest hassling Pigeon if you feel strongly one way or the other ;-)

[Will Hunt]

Both. More members means more heft when it comes to getting what you want for a start. Anyway, I'm a bit Climb Britain'd out - I suggest hassling Pigeon if you feel strongly one way or the other ;-)

Unacceptable Dan. You work for a not-for-profit. As such you should work 25 hours a day and be chained to the desk with iron shackles while you do so. You should live in a cave, be paid less than minimum wage, and if BMC employees wish to drink water or flush the toilet while at work they should bring their own water from home. Anything more is a disgraceful waste of our membership fees. You all disgust me with your dictatorial Moet lifestyles.

[gme]

I maybe in the minority on here but i have not been a member since the early 90s. And i was only a member then for the insurance.

I always thought it was a bunch of old blokes whinging about sports climbing and comps so never saw any reason to be a member. Its obviously a lot more than that but thats not how i perceived it as a youth.

A majority of the growth in climbing is coming from the sport, bouldering and indoor scenes, and therefore young people, so maybe a re-brand is needed.

Genuine question. Is mountaineering getting more popular in the UK? And if it is at what rate?

[danm]

Both. More members means more heft when it comes to getting what you want for a start. Anyway, I'm a bit Climb Britain'd out - I suggest hassling Pigeon if you feel strongly one way or the other ;-)

Unacceptable Dan. You work for a not-for-profit. As such you should work 25 hours a day and be chained to the desk with iron shackles while you do so. You should live in a cave, be paid less than minimum wage, and if BMC employees wish to drink water or flush the toilet while at work they should bring their own water from home. Anything more is a disgraceful waste of our membership fees. You all disgust me with your dictatorial Moet lifestyles.

I feel so bad about this, I'm going to flagellate myself against a piece of gritstone. Ahhh. That's better.

[Johnny Brown]

Since the BMC has broadened its scope to include hillwalking (something I'm still not convinced is a good idea),

This needs correcting - it is plain wrong. The term Mountaineering includes hillwalking and certainly always has done in the context of the BMC. In many member surveys over the years a majority of members have reported hillwalking as their main activity. The BMC has not widened its scope to include hillwalking, it has realised it has been neglecting a (arguably THE) core part of its membership.

There are several reasons why this happened, but perhaps the main one is that thirty years ago all but a tiny proportion of climbers were also hillwalkers. Not so much today. From an access team point of view though footpath closures and CRoW restrictions were and are taken just as seriously as crag access issues.

Engagement at local meetings is something that the BMC could potentially improve upon. I am a highly irregular attendee to my local meeting in Yorkshire. If I ever do go then I am generally the youngest there by at least 10 years, if not more often 20 years. The people who regularly attend the meeting are what you might call the "old guard" of climbing in Yorkshire and they're still out there now maintaining, caring for, and developing the crags. We can't expect them to do it forever, and the reins will need to be passed over at some point. I'm not sure how we get more young people involved in the BMC meets. Perhaps moving the meeting location to be in Leeds or closer to Leeds? What would go on the agenda to make it relevant to a new generation of climbers? Is there anything that can be done about this? Since 90% of climbers in Yorkshire seem to go only to Almscliff, Caley, Ilkley, and (if they're feeling adventurous) Brimham, then much of what is discussed at area meets is not going to be relevant.

This is a shame. I think the Peak area meet has done very well in this aspect in recent years. This has involved moving meets around - with some in Sheffield itself, but most nearby, plus annual visits to Staffs and Glossop. We have some entertainment - slideshow or film - as a sweetener at most meets too. But I guess generally getting younger folk involved and interesting agendas is key too. We get a good mix of ages, sexes and walkers too now, but it won't happen overnight.

[Will Hunt]

Good post, JB. Hadn't thought of it that way round.

I see that the BMC have put an article up explaining that the word "climb" is also relevant to hillwalkers. This is a bit unfortunate. Since brands are supposed to immediately convey a sense of what something is about, if you have to release an article explaining what the brand means then it's probably not worked.

[tomtom]

That "University of Salford Manchester" was a gem

Northumberland was apparently quite close to being the City University of Newcastle upon Tyne (think about the acronym..)