UKBouldering.com

the shizzle => shootin' the shit => Topic started by: T_B on July 25, 2016, 02:32:49 pm

Title: Climb Britain
Post by: T_B on July 25, 2016, 02:32:49 pm

The BMC's new name, devised by sports marketing specialists b-focused and design agency Thinkfarm.

Why does a representative body feel the need to be re-branded? It sounds very commercial and would be like Fell Runners Association feeling the need to be called 'Run Fells' or something more sexy.

I think it sounds very focussed (on climbing).

The BMC has tried to embrace hillwalkers more (I've never quite understood why, when we have the Ramblers Association), but hillwalkers do not think of themselves as 'Climbers' and will not identify with 'Climb Britain' whatever a brand agency might try and tell you. It's too hardcore. "Yes, but it's all climbing to the top isn't it?"

I wonder whether the hillwalkers and trekkers who take out their travel insurance will relate to it? My guess is they'll re-brand their travel insurance under a more 'inclusive' and 'global' heading, but that's just a hunch.

When people speak about "The BMC" do they even think "British Mountaineering Council". I don't. I view "The BMC" as it's own brand and a very strong one at that. They've obviously got way too much money to throw around!
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Duma on July 25, 2016, 02:39:56 pm
What a crock of shit.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: bigironhorse on July 25, 2016, 03:01:50 pm
Sounds like a complete waste of time and money!
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: highrepute on July 25, 2016, 03:10:31 pm
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-to-change-its-name-to-climb-britain
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: fried on July 25, 2016, 04:47:01 pm
Sounds like a book.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: SA Chris on July 25, 2016, 05:02:48 pm
Sounds like a book.

Sequel to Boulder Britain?
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Teaboy on July 25, 2016, 05:04:37 pm

The BMC's new name, devised by sports marketing specialists b-focused and design agency Thinkfarm.

Why does a representative body feel the need to be re-branded? It sounds very commercial and would be like Fell Runners Association feeling the need to be called 'Run Fells' or something more sexy.

I think it sounds very focussed (on climbing).

The BMC has tried to embrace hillwalkers more (I've never quite understood why, when we have the Ramblers Association), but hillwalkers do not think of themselves as 'Climbers' and will not identify with 'Climb Britain' whatever a brand agency might try and tell you. It's too hardcore. "Yes, but it's all climbing to the top isn't it?"

I wonder whether the hillwalkers and trekkers who take out their travel insurance will relate to it? My guess is they'll re-brand their travel insurance under a more 'inclusive' and 'global' heading, but that's just a hunch.

When people speak about "The BMC" do they even think "British Mountaineering Council". I don't. I view "The BMC" as it's own brand and a very strong one at that. They've obviously got way too much money to throw around!

I think it's unnecessary, I'm not clear on what problem it's intended to fix. I think the new name lacks gravitas compared to the old one for an organisations who's main function is still to negotiate with of the bodies, national orgs, quangos and private individuals for accessed. All that said Sport England had a similar rebranding and it didn't do them any harm. Also, I'm told (by a very reliable source) that they have borne the cost of this. Still seems a solution in search of an issue.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: JamieG on July 25, 2016, 05:09:49 pm
Oh dear, not a fan of this at all. I agree that I never thought about their full name just BMC, bit like the BBC (who actually thinks of the British Broadcasting Corporation every time?).

The new font is not too my taste either and looks like it will date quickly. Lastly I really like the old logo, which had great use of negative space, very subtle and led to cool uses like BMC TV http://tv.thebmc.co.uk/. The new one looks naff (like the word it belongs in the 90s). Like you find it on the side of a polystrene cup!
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: T_B on July 25, 2016, 05:13:45 pm
Oh dear, not a fan of this at all. I agree that I never thought about their full name just BMC, bit like the BBC (who actually thinks of the British Broadcasting Corporation every time?).

The new font is not too my taste either and looks like it will date quickly. Lastly I really like the old logo, which had great use of negative space, very subtle and led to cool uses like BMC TV http://tv.thebmc.co.uk/. The new one looks naff (like the word it belongs in the 90s). Like you find it on the side of a polystrene cup!

I agree, the font (which looks like it's had bits chopped off it) is not easy on the eye and will date very quickly.

I'm always amazed/impressed by the amount of marketing material the BMC puts out. To think it's all going to be re-branded $$$.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Johnny Brown on July 25, 2016, 05:25:44 pm
Must admit I'd heard this was on the cards so had got over the wtf shock bit already. I didn't know the new name, but having given it about five seconds guesswork I came up with 'Climb Uk'. Almost. I guess you pay less for the idea and more for a load of mumbo-demographically-targeted-consumer-assessment-jumbo to reassure everyone its the right thing to do.

Quote
The BMC has tried to embrace hillwalkers more (I've never quite understood why, when we have the Ramblers Association), but hillwalkers do not think of themselves as 'Climbers' and will not identify with 'Climb Britain' whatever a brand agency might try and tell you. It's too hardcore. "Yes, but it's all climbing to the top isn't it?"

 I agree up to a point, the point being that I'm not sure 'mountaineering' was any more inclusive of hillwalkers. But 'mountaineering' is much less inclusive of indoor and sport climbers - which, lets face it, are the big growth area here.

Some Ramblers hillwalk, many do not, few scramble. There is definitely a need for representation for hillwalkers. And 'council' doesn't mean much to anyone any more. The role of the BMC/ CB is certainly far wider now than it was. The big question is whether Bonners will resent having his initials stolen.

PS agree on the font. The old logo was well established and didn't look dated. Might soften the transition of they'd kept closer to it.

Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: 36chambers on July 25, 2016, 05:53:11 pm
The logo looks like it was designed by the same team that brought us the seminal London 2012 logo. :strongbench:
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Doylo on July 25, 2016, 06:47:13 pm
Meh
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: tomtom on July 25, 2016, 07:02:05 pm
"Rebranding the BBC" from the brilliant W1A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCQJEAcYSCw
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: danm on July 25, 2016, 07:24:45 pm
When people who climb ask me what I do, and I answer "I work for the BMC" a fair majority know who I'm talking about.

Answer the question from people who don't climb, and I then always have to elaborate along the lines of "we're the representative body for climbers, walkers etc."

The point of the re-brand is to make it instantly obvious to people outside the sport or on the periphery who we are, what we do and what we represent. I think it'll achieve that.

Best of all, I reckon I'll get a new T-shirt out of it.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: mark on July 25, 2016, 08:06:30 pm
Changed my mind.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Will Hunt on July 26, 2016, 02:45:15 pm
From Dave Turnbull, posted on the Other Channel:

Quote
All
…very impressive level of response, many thanks to everyone who has commented. Here are some personal perspectives and detail about the process to date:

 Midway through last year, I was at a seminar in London when one of the speakers mentioned funding might be available to help sports organisations develop their commercial and sponsorship potential. The BMC has always struggled to attract sponsorship income on any kind of scale (we end up funding the bulk of our work ourselves), so I followed this up and eventually we were given the services of a reputable consultancy firm to help us work up ideas. This work looked at things like our membership structure and benefits package, travel insurance and sponsorship options in great detail and has been extremely useful. At the start of the process we secured some addition money (around £25k) for a branding agency to take a detailed look at how people perceive the BMC and how we might be able to improve our image to connect with new people and stay relevant in the modern age.

 At the outset my expectation was that we’d probably end up with a recommendation to adopt a new BMC logo and some detailed brand guidelines about how to position ourselves. There was no specific brief to come up with new name for the BMC - it just evolved that way because the consultants came up with idea we felt had traction. For years we’ve pondered about the suitability of ‘Mountaineering Council’ in our name, but we’ve never been able to come up with an acceptable alternative. BMC as an acronym is OK if you know the BMC, but for new people it’s not obvious who we are or what we do. ‘British Climbing’ has been bandied about over the years, but the word ‘Climbing’ is different to ‘Climb’ and would never be acceptable to our hill walking members. ‘Climb’ on the other hand does work in the context of ‘climb hills, climb mountains, climb rocks etc’. Other random options over the years have included British Mountaineering, British Mountain Sports or British Mountaineering and Climbing. None of which are hugely better than British Mountaineering Council / BMC.

 So, Climb Britain was thought up as a concept in March this year and we took it from there: initially sounding people out internally to see if they liked it and felt it worth taking forward. This involved discussion amongst the BMC’s directors (all unpaid elected volunteers) and past Presidents (including the likes of Dave Musgrove, Rab Carrington and Chris Bonington) and the MCofS (who were supportive). There were some reservations, of course, but the overwhelming reaction was that the time (and the name) was right, so on 18 May the directors unanimously agreed to take the new name forward to the BMC National Council meeting, which took place at Plas y Brenin on 18 June. An explanation for those who aren’t aware: National Council comprises two elected representatives from each of the BMC’s ten ‘Areas’ (London, Peak, Lakes, Cymru / Wales North, Cymru / Wales South etc.), the directors, and all of our Specialist Committee chairs (Clubs Committee, Access Management Group, Huts Advisory Group, Training & Youth Committee, Technical Committee etc.) as observers. National Council is the BMC’s policy-making body and the role of the Area reps is to feed in the views of their Area Meetings and take issues from National Council back to Areas for consideration when they see fit. National Council is made up of committed volunteers who give up their time (at least four weekends per years) to participate in quarterly meetings and the AGM. It comprises grassroots enthusiasts and is typically very thoughtful and cautious in approach.

 So, on 18 June I presented the Climb Britain concept to a well-attended gathering, fully expecting it to raise eyebrows and to be knocked back to the September meeting following a period of wider discussion. National Council was aware the branding project had been going on and as it turned out the response was incredibly enthusiastic and positive. The Area representatives (your representatives) liked the concept and the name Climb Britain. They felt the time was right, that the BMC had to move with the times and they voted 19 for, 1 abstention, 0 against in favour of adopting the new identity.

 For me personally, Climb Britain wasn’t love at first sight, it’s been a ‘grower’ though. My initial impression (back in March) was it sounded a bit awkward and unusual, more like a campaign than a national body, a bit radical for the BMC. But I think the logo works well: it’s distinctive, builds on previous BMC logos and, when seen in conjunction with the ‘climb hills, climb mountains, etc’ strapline, presents a strong and clear message. Give it time, I say.

 In response to some of the other points on this thread and elsewhere:

 1. Why rebrand? To continue to represent the best interests of all climbers and walkers now – and into the future – the BMC had to modernise and change. Without evolving, our membership age profile would have increased and at some stage – not now, but perhaps not far off – we would have ceased to become relevant in the new landscape.

 2. What did the consultancy work involve? Discussion with a sample of BMC volunteers, Area reps, climbing wall managers, young and older climbers, hill walkers and others. Meetings with members of the BMC Women’s Development Group, our Hill Walking Development Group and staff, and visits to climbing walls.

 3. What exactly is ‘Climb Britain’? It’s a new public identity, a new way of presenting what we do and what we stand for. Our formal name (Companies House, Memorandum & Articles of Association) will remain the British Mountaineering Council (BMC), and ‘BMC’ will still be used in aspects of our media and membership literature. The BMC’s core work for climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers will continue as usual under the Climb Britain banner; it will be business as usual.

 4. Decision making / consultation. I’ve explained above how we arrived at Climb Britain. The BMC has an effective democratic structure and we used this in reaching the decision. Complex or commercially sensitive issues can be extremely difficult or impossible to agree via widespread membership consultation and there are times when we rely on our (your) elected Area reps to make judgement calls on big issues. That’s why they’re there, that why they give up their time to be involved.

 5. Sport England and the Olympics. The consultancy work was paid for by Sport England so members’ money was not used on the rebrand. There were no strings attached (if we didn’t like what the consultants came up with then we weren’t obliged to accept it) and without this kind of help we wouldn’t normally be able to afford this level of professional advice. Finally, regarding the Sports Councils, Sport England is not involved with the Olympics, UK Sport is. The BMC gets financial support from Sport England, not UK Sport. Sport England funds projects like ours to encourage organisations to increase their commercial (and external sponsorship) income and thus reduce their dependency on Government funding. This whole process started well before the 2020 Olympics became such a realistic prospect; it’s a complete coincidence that the two things have come about at the same time.

 Phew.

 Dave
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: JamieG on July 26, 2016, 03:08:02 pm
Answer the question from people who don't climb, and I then always have to elaborate along the lines of "we're the representative body for climbers, walkers etc."

Isn't this going to be exactly the same? If I didn't know what Climb Britain was I'd ask what they did and you'd respond "we're the representative body for climbers, walkers etc."
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: danm on July 26, 2016, 05:23:11 pm
Answer the question from people who don't climb, and I then always have to elaborate along the lines of "we're the representative body for climbers, walkers etc."

Isn't this going to be exactly the same? If I didn't know what Climb Britain was I'd ask what they did and you'd respond "we're the representative body for climbers, walkers etc."

Sport bodies tend to be called things like British Canoeing, British Cycling, Sport England etc. Climb Britain fits the basic template. BMC could be anything - a software company, a Swiss based bike manufacturer and so on. (Those are all real btw). So no, it isn't going to be just the same.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: mini on July 26, 2016, 06:09:48 pm
Climb Britain has a ring of post Brexit insularism.

The British Mountaineering Council sounded less so, being (as it said on the tin) a representative council for British mountaineers (walkers, climbers etc...) wherever that may be, home or abroad.

Using both identities, as per Dave's quoted statement above, just seems to add needless marketing confusion in my eyes for little gain.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Will Hunt on July 27, 2016, 11:14:04 am
I'm trying to decide what I think about this and there's something that I could do with being enlightened about. Do the BMC have a role in governing the competitive side of the sport? What's their involvement there? Do they pick a team? Fund coaching and travel to competitions? Do they have a governance role where they're responsible for disciplining drugs cheats (no idea whether this is even a thing in climbing yet)? A role in influencing the format of competitions?
Perhaps, Graeme or Dan or Grimer or anybody informed could shed some light?
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: danm on July 27, 2016, 11:28:28 am
Not my area Will but yes, the BMC run the team. You have to remember that the team is like the tip of the iceberg. Underneath all that is the talent pathway stuff, junior comps, coaching, work with academies etc. There's loads of volunteers, many partnerships to organise, sponsors to be found and so on. Nobody does anything on their own anymore, it's a big inter-meshing web. It's all climbing though ;-)
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Will Hunt on July 27, 2016, 11:32:31 am
Yep, sounds like it's a huge amount of good work. Do the BMC act as the central coordinator for all of that?
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: SA Chris on July 27, 2016, 11:42:35 am
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?
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: highrepute on July 27, 2016, 11:50:41 am
I remember not knowing what the BMC was - I assumed it was a club for old people who climbed mountains.

Climb Britain is good.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: tomtom on July 27, 2016, 12:00:02 pm
[emoji106] from me. What's the problem? BMC always sounded like a failed British car manufacturer from years gone by..
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Duncan campbell on July 27, 2016, 12:00:11 pm
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
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: 36chambers on July 27, 2016, 12:00:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: tomtom on July 27, 2016, 12:02:03 pm
I think they should have a mascot :)
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: danm on July 27, 2016, 12:04:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: galpinos on July 27, 2016, 12:06:14 pm
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......

Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: rginns on July 27, 2016, 12:25:27 pm
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
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: galpinos on July 27, 2016, 12:34:29 pm
 That "University of Salford Manchester" was a gem
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: SA Chris on July 27, 2016, 12:42:06 pm
Boaty McBoatFace

Actually Climby McMountainFace would be genius.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: rginns on July 27, 2016, 12:48:50 pm
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!
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Will Hunt on July 27, 2016, 01:25:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Paul B on July 27, 2016, 01:33:39 pm
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!
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: JamieG on July 27, 2016, 02:14:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: rginns on July 27, 2016, 02:27:40 pm
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  :whistle:
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: danm on July 27, 2016, 02:41:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: JamieG on July 27, 2016, 02:45:46 pm
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  :whistle:

Spot on!
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: SA Chris on July 27, 2016, 03:09:44 pm

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/
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: SA Chris on July 27, 2016, 03:11:02 pm
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?
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Paul B on July 27, 2016, 03:11:40 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: danm on July 27, 2016, 03:24:29 pm
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 ;-)
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Will Hunt on July 27, 2016, 03:52:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: gme on July 27, 2016, 04:16:18 pm
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?
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: danm on July 27, 2016, 04:35:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Johnny Brown on July 27, 2016, 05:14:24 pm
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Will Hunt on July 27, 2016, 06:37:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: tomtom on July 27, 2016, 07:50:13 pm
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..)
Title: Climb Britain
Post by: bigtuboflard on July 27, 2016, 07:56:11 pm
Off topic I know but I'm an equally big fan of Doncaster Sheffield Robin Hood airport (or something like that) as a name, always attracted foreign visitors on the promise of disembarking in a forest surrounded by men in tights. Must be such a disappointment when they realise they're on an old RAF base somewhere south of Doncaster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Falling Down on July 27, 2016, 08:03:29 pm
Been a BMC member for ages.  Access negotiations, brilliant guidebooks since Niall took over after the Wye Valley debacle, public liability insurance whilst climbing plus good insurance deals for overseas trips. Climb Britain is fine with me.  Haven't looked at the logo but don't really care what it looks like either.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Will Hunt on July 27, 2016, 08:44:24 pm
Leeds and Bradford International Airport nearly got the go-ahead.

Maybe it should be British Upward Movement? When someone asked where you were going with that big mat thing you could just tell them you were off to do some bumming.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: psychomansam on July 27, 2016, 11:51:11 pm
Meh

+1

Their email did make me think I'm not re-joining or contributing any money any time soon though. 
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: duncan on July 28, 2016, 01:43:14 pm
I don't mind ClimbBritainTM. I sort-of see the point of the change, though many organisations seem to do fine despite having outgrown their original name. Mountain Equipment Co-op is still MEC despite now mainly selling yoga mats, MSR doesn't have much to do with safety any more.

The previous logo was an excellent piece of graphic design and the replacement is something a 23 year old thought looked cool and will be painfully dated in 5 years. 

The way the whole process has been handled is another example of the democratic deficit in the organisation. Consulting with membership relies on discussion at the local meetings. The London and SE is terrible at publishing their agenda in advance so it's impossible to know if something important will be raised. This is ludicrous for the 21st century and smacks of an organisation that's content to keep important information and decisions in as few hands as possible.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: tc on July 28, 2016, 02:14:41 pm
The term "Britain" refers to England, Scotland and Wales. So we now have "Climb Britain" (for England, Scotland and Wales, I assume), "Climb Cymru" (for Wales) and the Mountaineering Council of Scotland (for Scotland).
"Climb Cymru" is only half Welsh, however, so perhaps this only refers to half of Wales.
 :???:
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: SA Chris on July 28, 2016, 02:21:55 pm
Clymb Cymru?
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on July 28, 2016, 05:48:48 pm
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.

Yes. The more recent focus and effort on hillwalking is in effect making good a broken promise to actively represent and promote hillwalking whereas before it got little more than lip service.

The raised profile has I'm sure been greatly helped by Carey Davies being appointed as Hillwalking Officer three years ago. He comes across as one of the more driven, proactive and enthusiastic BMC staff members.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on July 28, 2016, 06:01:17 pm

Update from the BMC:

Quote from: Dave Turnbull =www.thebmc.co.uk/climb-britain-update-from-the-bmc

It's been a rocky ride this last few days, and it's probably fair to say we didn’t quite anticipate the level of interest there would be in our Climb Britain announcement. But, since then, we have been listening very carefully and this is what we’re proposing to do:

• We remain firmly behind Climb Britain and believe it is the right choice for the future of the organisation; the BMC has to keep moving on and stay relevant to new people as times change.

• We accept the need for wider debate so we’re proposing a period of active engagement in which we will get people together to discuss the issues; this will be done via the next set of Area meetings together with some specific gatherings of groups such as clubs and the GB Climbing Team if there is interest or demand. I will personally attend as many of these as I can, alongside the President and/or other senior BMC officials as and when they’re available.

• Climb Britain and the rebranding issue will then go back to the next National Council meeting (17 September) for further discussion and a decision on the way forward.

• In the meantime, we will keep the Climb Britain logo out there and will monitor feedback from members so that by September we should have a much better feel for how it's all working.

With thanks to everyone who has contributed on this so far, this is important and we are most definitely listening.
 
Dave Turnbull
CEO
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Fiend on July 28, 2016, 06:19:03 pm
Name is rubbish and misses out one key aspect i.e. highlighting that it is a representative organisation with some gravitas e.g. COUNCIL.

Logo needs more goatse.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: ben on July 28, 2016, 09:35:34 pm
 :off:  but Fiend was it you we bumped into at Ban-y-Gor last night with Mark ?
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Fiend on July 29, 2016, 11:07:20 am
 :off: ....maybe..... let me just check the karma settings and see if I've offended you and been punter for it first, before admitting to that....
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Three Nine on July 29, 2016, 11:42:25 am
I just want to chip in helpfully here with:

[/FUCK THE BMC - WHATEVER IT CALLS ITSELFb]
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Paul B on July 29, 2016, 02:11:08 pm
Given you won't contribute to bolt funds which you benefit from and think people are 'stupid' who spend their (free) time (voluntarily) re-bolting stuff I'd encourage you to pipe down.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Three Nine on July 29, 2016, 03:09:31 pm
FUCK BENNETT
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: SA Chris on July 29, 2016, 03:57:44 pm
Lovely Christian Boy he is.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Paul B on July 29, 2016, 08:39:02 pm
I see he's enjoying Bristol...  :whistle:
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Three Nine on July 29, 2016, 08:56:04 pm
 :ras:
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Doylo on July 29, 2016, 09:30:54 pm
Time to head back up north. Belays and beaver await .
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Fiend on July 29, 2016, 10:13:46 pm
He must be desperate, he even contacted me for climbing. I did offer to take him to North Pembroke to cheque could film him crying at the horror of it all, or us both dying as 3-9's mighty sport strength caused the whole cliff to collapse, but alas no  ::) :no:
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Three Nine on July 29, 2016, 10:59:41 pm
Time to head back up north. Belays and beaver await .

i dont remember any beaver!
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: dave on August 06, 2016, 09:52:45 pm
Just caught up with this whole thing. The rebrand seems like absolute bollocks to me. Appeal to the "yoof" market etc. A marketing firm is 25 grand better off and we've lost what actually was a quite strong and historic brand. No doubt the same marketing geniuses would love to rebrand BMW as "vvvvvrrrroom CAR".

It doesn't really matter if the initials BMC originally stood for British Mountaineering Council, Bonners' Massive Cock, or BearGrylls Money Cash, the point is it had reached the point where "The BMC" was just "The BMC". Actually any smart marketing firm would have recognised the strength of the brand already and just suggested keeping BMC and quietly dropping any reference to it being an acronym any more (other brands have done this). Then you keep your brand lineage and don't have to buy new letterhead. In years to come "what did the letters BMC originally stand for" can be a question at a Peak area xmas quiz.

I get all the well intentioned reasons for it, but most if not all of the desired outcomes could be achieved equally well without a rebrand. Its what you do the matters, not what the name is. When Marathon became Snickers did the bar taste better because of a realignment of the product identity with a new global taste paradigm? No, it still tasted like a fucking shit ruined Mars bar.

Cadfael suggested Climb UK, but are there any early web adopters out there who remember Climb UK? If I remember correctly it was an early Matt Heason thing wasn't it, a sort of rocktalk competitor who UKC eventually bought the rights to the domain name, something like that? I won a free tshirt from them. So there you go, our governing body has been rebranded to sound like a doomed 1999 dotcom web enterprise.

Bag 'o shite.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: tomtom on August 06, 2016, 10:44:21 pm
Blimey, a week away doing snow plods in't Alps and you've gone all uKc on us Dave! ;)
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on August 06, 2016, 11:00:34 pm
Time for your pills Grandad
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: dave on August 07, 2016, 06:51:32 am
I'm up for hearing all the watertight reasons it is an amazing move, just everyone seems to be keeping them a secret.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: moose on August 07, 2016, 08:17:51 am
When Marathon became Snickers did the bar taste better because of a realignment of the product identity with a new global taste paradigm? No, it still tasted like a fucking shit ruined Mars bar.

I agree re the junking of the BMC brand; although, I don't care enough to get het-up . But Snickers/ Marathon "a fucking shit ruined Mars bar"?! Are you insane? They have nuts in - a clear winner? Next, you'll be dissing Topics (a bar whose only flaw is being slightly too small), and if that happens, no reasonable man will hold me responsible for my actions.....
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: dave on August 07, 2016, 08:24:27 am
I hate nuts, esp peanuts, so to me a Snickers might as well be a Mars rolled in dogshit and broken glass. Mind you if the BMC's marketing consultants were in charge of the Marathon rebrand it would have been called "eat NUTTYChoc".
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: tregiffian on August 07, 2016, 08:28:09 am
Was Founding Father Dennis Gray consulted?
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Will Hunt on August 07, 2016, 11:33:44 am
It's not a major point but you've repeated the misconception that the BMC paid 25k to marketing consultants. They were given 25k worth of services for nothing.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: GraemeA on August 07, 2016, 12:18:16 pm
When Marathon became Snickers did the bar taste better because of a realignment of the product identity with a new global taste paradigm? No, it still tasted like a fucking shit ruined Mars bar.

I agree re the junking of the BMC brand; although, I don't care enough to get het-up . But Snickers/ Marathon "a fucking shit ruined Mars bar"?! Are you insane? They have nuts in - a clear winner? Next, you'll be dissing Topics (a bar whose only flaw is being slightly too small), and if that happens, no reasonable man will hold me responsible for my actions.....

Topic went of the boil when they reduced the number of hazelnuts - a sad day  :furious:
Title: Climb Britain
Post by: tomtom on August 07, 2016, 02:04:34 pm
Topics were my chocolate bar of choice... Though I'm partial to a bar of chemical goodliness masquerading as a Turkish Delight bar...

Anyway - snickers is named after an old nag...


(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160807/c40cb865251a3129432549bc001b25d0.jpg)
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: petejh on August 07, 2016, 02:05:09 pm
I hate nuts, esp peanuts, so to me a Snickers might as well be a Mars rolled in dogshit and broken glass.

Mmmm, all washed down with a can of over-caffeinated sugary drink company (or 'DrinkSugarGetIllTM'), yummmmm.

The re-brand to Climb Britain is fucked up and clearly linked with indoor and competition climbing. Seems a no-brainer to use the CB brand for that sector of climbing's broad church. But re-re-design the logo FFS! I'm shit at design and I could do better than that with a couple of hours on adobe illustrator for £25  :greed: 
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: petejh on August 07, 2016, 02:07:45 pm
Hahah, love how someone has coded UKB to auto-convert R.ed B.ull into 'over-caffeinated sugary drink company'.  :lol:
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: tomtom on August 07, 2016, 02:09:26 pm
Apparently there was a Snickers special edition available in Australia called 'Snickers Maximus'
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Offwidth on August 07, 2016, 02:22:43 pm
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..)

Hah! (but I think you do mean Northumbria University...a ' NU' institution down with the kids). Within our Trent brand, change it was rumoured that City University of Nottingham on Trent was briefly considered by marketing experts. Instead we got The Nottingham Trent Uni (partly, as Nottingham Uni (aka Beeston Tech) insisted we had to have a "The" to avoid confusion!), a massive pay rise for the incumbant leader (now VC) and senior management, and one of the world's shittest logos, including a pantone colour you couldn't print from standard CMYK printers.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: tomtom on August 07, 2016, 02:37:10 pm
Yes - right you are :)
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Will Hunt on August 07, 2016, 03:14:23 pm
I'm shit at design and I could do better than that with a couple of hours on adobe illustrator for £25  :greed:

Too late, Pete. I've already been paid a cool £25k for this effort.

(https://c7.staticflickr.com/9/8210/28207169254_2dc666bdfb_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JYz7Go)Dynamic synergistic logo (https://flic.kr/p/JYz7Go) by Hunta_998 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/34726894@N00/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: petejh on August 07, 2016, 03:42:55 pm
Totally Fucking Mexico!  :great:

I'm assuming your name is also a brand name. In this case of a person adamant of their right to hunt animals.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: slackline on August 08, 2016, 08:24:25 am
Should have rebranded 'BMC' to  'UKClimbing'. :clown:
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: SA Chris on August 08, 2016, 10:39:36 am
When Marathon became Snickers did the bar taste better because of a realignment of the product identity with a new global taste paradigm?

Plus the punchline "he tried to enter a Snickers" doesn't work as well as the original.

Starburst are tastier than Opal Fruits though.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on August 11, 2016, 10:51:29 am
Next Peak Area Meet on Sept 14th has been changed to Maynard at Grindleford in anticipation of greater numbers.

The meeting will include a consultation on the rebranding proposal, and will be attended by BMC president Rehan Siddiqui, vice-presidents Emma Flaherty and Rupert Davies, and CEO Dave Turnbull, who will explain the background to the rebranding proposal in detail and will be followed by an open discussion and Q&A session.

Consultations will be held at all the September Area meetings round the country. Info here: www.thebmc.co.uk/september-area-meetings-consultation-on-rebranding
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: moose on August 11, 2016, 11:54:40 am
I respectfully ask that the following issues are added to the agenda:

(1) Nuts in chocolate bars, a benefit or an abomination?
(2) The engagement of an independent panel of confectionery historians to assess if Opal Fruits were tastier than Starburst.
(3) Commission a behavioral economist to assess if Mint Aero bars are worth the premium cost over the more quotidian likes of Mars Bars.
(3) Have Wagon Wheels really shrank, or has my mouth just got bigger?
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: csl on August 11, 2016, 12:08:27 pm
Moose, please see exhibit A

(https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/wagon-wheel.png)
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: tomtom on August 11, 2016, 12:33:31 pm
Hmm. Always dangerous dealing with percentages to circles - let alone cylinders.. Is that 12% the weight, the diameter, the height or the volume!! Maybe they use lighter packaging now. Back around wagon wheel info graphic...
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: dave on August 11, 2016, 12:37:22 pm
It's clearly 12% weight TT, do the math(s).
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: SA Chris on August 11, 2016, 12:42:43 pm
I'm doubting the accuracy of those scales though...
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: petejh on August 11, 2016, 12:58:42 pm
Can't believe nobody's mentioned Curly Wurlys, so I will.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: tomtom on August 11, 2016, 01:02:36 pm
It's clearly 12% weight TT, do the math(s).

I couldn't be bothered. Figured someone else might find out ;)
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: dave on August 11, 2016, 01:03:52 pm
Can't believe nobody's mentioned Curly Wurlys, so I will.

Don't get us started on Creme Eggs

(http://www.chocablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/smallegg.png)
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: SA Chris on August 11, 2016, 01:10:42 pm
It's not just the size it's the quality.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/12094209/Cadbury-loses-more-than-6m-in-Creme-Egg-sales-after-changing-recipe.html

I blame German climbing Cafes taking them over. 

Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: tomtom on August 11, 2016, 01:11:40 pm
Fuck the quality. Feel the width.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Dexter on August 11, 2016, 01:28:07 pm
Fuck the quality. Feel the width.

Sounds like the name of the new wideboyz video
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on August 23, 2016, 09:10:18 pm
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-and-climb-britain-next-steps

New message from Rehan the President.

Almost inevitable I'd say that this will now go to a vote at the AGM.  ::)

The AGM is typically not well attended so a great opportunity to bump up the numbers :whistle:
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on August 23, 2016, 09:46:54 pm
As an alternative would "The British Climbing Organisation" have the gravitis that a lot of complainants have an issue with re Climb Britain but still have the inclusiveness that covers the breadth of the BMC's representation ? 
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: dave on August 23, 2016, 10:04:13 pm
Anything with the word "climbing" in is always going to sound like its about climbing more than anything else, with mountaineering and crucially hillwalking is supported as a resultant side project. Nobody going out hillwalking uses the word climbing to describe what they do.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on August 23, 2016, 10:08:39 pm
Anything with the word "climbing" in is always going to sound like its about climbing more than anything else, with mountaineering and crucially hillwalking is supported as a resultant side project. Nobody going out hillwalking uses the word climbing to describe what they do.

I have just received an article from Peter Judd for the Peak Area newsletter. He is one of the Hill Walking reps for the Peak Area and to quote him:

Quote
Most hill walkers, even those new to the activity, will have said something along the lines of “I climbed Mam Tor yesterday, then wandered along the ridge to climb to the top of Lose Hill too” at one time or another.  So I think hill walkers will see that the name ‘Climb Britain’ is inclusive of them, just as much as it is of the climbers, boulderers, winter mountaineers and alpinists that make up our organisation’s  family of activities.  In that respect it is certainly no worse for hill walkers than our existing name and probably, I would argue, a little better! I’d certainly struggle to suggest an alternative that is as broadly inclusive and descriptive of what we all do.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: dave on August 23, 2016, 10:16:48 pm
Is this a wind-up? He's talking bollocks. If I go walking I would never say climbing either now or before I was a climber. I have never heard anyone, climber or non-climber, describe walking/hiking/hillwalking/trekking/backpacking or indeed any nonclimbing ambulatory activity as climbing. Climbing means climbing, unless you're a road cyclist. Fucks sake.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on August 23, 2016, 10:22:03 pm
Is this a wind-up? He's talking bollocks. If I go walking I would never say climbing either now or before I was a climber. I have never heard anyone, climber or non-climber, describe walking/hiking/hillwalking/trekking/backpacking or indeed any nonclimbing ambulatory activity as climbing. Climbing means climbing, unless you're a road cyclist. Fucks sake.

"I climbed a hill" I just said it aloud. My family didn't think it sounded stupid.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: dave on August 23, 2016, 10:27:38 pm
If you said you'd gone out climbing and it turned out all you'd done was walked up a hill they'd think you were stupid, or at least taking the doing-anything-to-avoid-bouldering-for-the-Oak to an extreme level.

I am aware that the verb "climbing" exists and what is means. However on the whole it is never used to describe the activity of hillwalking. An airliner climbs during talkoff, but you woudn't catch the civil aviation authority rebranding itself as the civil climbing authority.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on August 23, 2016, 10:40:15 pm
If you said you'd gone out climbing and it turned out all you'd done was walked up a hill they'd think you were stupid, or at least taking the doing-anything-to-avoid-bouldering-for-the-Oak to an extreme level.

I am aware that the verb "climbing" exists and what is means. However on the whole it is never used to describe the activity of hillwalking. An airliner climbs during talkoff, but you woudn't catch the civil aviation authority rebranding itself as the civil climbing authority.

Ha fucking ha.

C'mon clever clogs what would you propose as an alternative title for the BMC that bests represents its activities internally and to the outside world?
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: dave on August 23, 2016, 10:44:25 pm
Doesn't need one, just call it the BMC, doesn't need to stand for anything any more, it's defined by what it does. Nevertheless, as it stands, the word "mountain" is broadly speaking more central to the range of activities represented than "climb".
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on August 23, 2016, 10:45:58 pm
Doesn't need one, just call it the BMC, doesn't need to stand for anything any more, it's defined by what it does. Nevertheless, as it stands, the word "mountain" is broadly speaking more central to the range of activities represented than "climb".

For one so young you are very set in your ways
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: petejh on August 23, 2016, 10:49:15 pm
C'mon clever clogs what would you propose as an alternative title for the BMC that bests represents its activities internally and to the outside world?

AXA


Or BMC - British Mountaineering & Climbing
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on August 23, 2016, 10:51:57 pm
Or BMC - British Mountaineering & Climbing

 ;D
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: dave on August 23, 2016, 10:52:36 pm
I'm not set in my ways, I'm just naturally suspicious of marketing platitudes that don't seem to be backed up by facts. If we can disregard the apologist line that "climb" somehow magically ape compasses hillwalking, despite the fact nobody ever calls hillwalking climbing, can you explain how the rebrand is more inclusive?
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: petejh on August 23, 2016, 10:59:32 pm
Or BMC - British Mountaineering & Climbing

 ;D

You heard it here first. Now where's my fucking money.

DeZyne Wonk Ltd.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on August 23, 2016, 11:00:45 pm
I'm not set in my ways, I'm just naturally suspicious of marketing platitudes that don't seem to be backed up by facts. If we can disregard the apologist line that "climb" somehow magically ape compasses hillwalking, despite the fact nobody ever calls hillwalking climbing, can you explain how the rebrand is more inclusive?

Subjectively I would allocate a resonance level for the word "climb" as follows:

Mountaineering 85%
Crag climbing 100%
Indoor Climbing 100%
Bouldering 95%
Hill walking 40%

I think British Mountaineering Council sounds old fashioned like the Masons or the League of Gentlemen or The National Explorers Association or whatever it was called in Paddington Bear - ie Old London Club, archaic rules etc ie not inclusive at all. 
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: dave on August 23, 2016, 11:38:53 pm

Subjectively I would allocate a resonance level for the word "climb" as follows:

Mountaineering 85%
Crag climbing 100%
Indoor Climbing 100%
Bouldering 95%
Hill walking 40%

So not very applicable to hillwalking.

I think British Mountaineering Council sounds old fashioned like the Masons or the League of Gentlemen or The National Explorers Association or whatever it was called in Paddington Bear - ie Old London Club, archaic rules etc ie not inclusive at all.

Nothing cements the image of being clunky, unsure and out-of-touch like a clumsy rebrand. Consignia etc.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on August 24, 2016, 12:17:01 am
Come up with something less clunky and than Climb Britain and less old fashioned than the British Mountaineering Council and more representative of the organisation than both
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: rodma on August 24, 2016, 06:39:08 am
I'm not set in my ways, I'm just naturally suspicious of marketing platitudes that don't seem to be backed up by facts. If we can disregard the apologist line that "climb" somehow magically ape compasses hillwalking, despite the fact nobody ever calls hillwalking climbing, can you explain how the rebrand is more inclusive?
Maybe as a direct consequence of living in a hillier country than you,  I'd say 50% of people i meet when they first discover I'm a climber ask how many of the munros I've  done. Nowadays,  I'm assuming because I'm older they ask if I've done them all.  Granted,  some people do understand what the word climb means,  so they ask how high I've climbed,  or if I've done many of the 5000m peaks.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: tomtom on August 24, 2016, 06:50:15 am
I like Climb Britain.

However, people do climb stairs too, so I am very concerned that this might be TOO inclusive and mean that people at work who decide to use the stairwell rather than the elevator may feel entitled to claim the same passtime as myself.

I'm not a member - but I bet I live closer to their secretive HQ eyrie in Manchester than any of you :p So if they change their logo permanently, my eyes will be scarred every time I walk past to go to the co-op to pick up some Stella.

Yours confusedly from West Didsbury.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: dave on August 24, 2016, 07:35:07 am
Come up with something less clunky and than Climb Britain and less old fashioned than the British Mountaineering Council and more representative of the organisation than both

There probably isn't some magic phrase that does that. So what the BMC needs to do if it is worried that it is perceived as being old fashioned and not being representative is to make sure all the great inclusive and forward thinking things that it does are taken notice of. It needs to make sure what it is in the collective conciousness transcends what the letters B M C stand for (same way all successful abbreviation brand names have) rather than just going for a throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater rebrand.

And/or:

Doesn't need one, just call it the BMC, doesn't need to stand for anything any more, it's defined by what it does.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: lagerstarfish on August 24, 2016, 08:14:15 am
"I climbed a hill" I just said it aloud. My family didn't think it sounded stupid.

they are experts in managing you and have heard you say more interesting things
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: nai on August 24, 2016, 10:15:06 am
Doesn't need one, just call it the BMC, doesn't need to stand for anything any more, it's defined by what it does.

Like when Prince changed his name to a symbol.  Everyone knows it's the BMC (or the organisation formerly known as the BMC) but without the old fuddy-duddy label.  So keep the existing graphic and add slogans to it - Protect & Promote; Climb, Walk, Flail; Take. Etc.

Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: SamT on August 24, 2016, 10:21:59 am
Doesn't need one, just call it the BMC, doesn't need to stand for anything any more, it's defined by what it does.

I'm with Dave on this one.

Who knows what HSBC stood for, which is no longer relevant, or who M&S were, or BandQ were.   Nobody cares really, they are all incredibly strong High Street brands based on acronyms whose history has been largely lost in the annals of time.

On the whole issue of the inclusion of the hill walking fraternity, to argue that 'Climb' better represents them than 'Mountaineering' is just laughable. To most folks, I'm sure they see hill walking much more akin to mountaineering, one being walking up hills, and the other being walking even bigger hills.

To get further into the semantics, thinking about it, like Dave says, nobody says 'I climbed Win Hill the other day', they'd say, 'I went up Win Hill the other day' , We went up Snowdon, We went up Ben Nevis, get into the alps and you'd start saying 'We climbed the Matterhorn' etc.

Yes, I agree that "The British Mountaineering Council" sounds antiquated, but nobody calls it that anymore, they call it the BMC.  When Dan gets asked ' So who are the BMC/What do they do', he can reply that "The BMC is a body that represents climbers, hillwalkers, mountaineers etc" in just the same number of words that he'd used to explain 'Who are ClimbBritain/What do they do' which he'd still get asked.  I guess if pushed he could explain that 'historically, it was the British Mountaineering Council, but nowadays its just the BMC.

"Climb Britain" still sounds very much to me like a private company, perhaps involved in organising mass charity outings (three peaks etc) than a national representation/lobbying body. 
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on August 24, 2016, 10:40:12 am
Ok I see your points though if actual hill climbers/walkers prefer it to the status quo then I am inclined to vote in favour of the rebrand but open to what is said at the Area Meet on both sides
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: rich d on August 24, 2016, 10:44:55 am
My face book is full of people requesting sponsorship for climbing Snowdon, Ben Nevis etc, climbing the 3 peaks but they seem to all walk up them.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Plattsy on August 24, 2016, 10:45:18 am
Who knows what HSBC stood for
Hairy Scary Black Canary  :)

I'm afraid some hill walkers do use the word climb. Just because Dave never heard it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Perhaps they'd buy a t-shirt like this.
(http://rlv.zcache.co.uk/i_climbed_snowdon_t_shirts-raae32e8dfcd344c8aae263c618681eff_jg4de_512.jpg)

or they'd use a website like this to find out which routes climb Snowden.
http://www.snowdon.com/blog/routes/ (http://www.snowdon.com/blog/routes/)
"There are 7 main routes to climb to the summit of Snowdon. They are represented in the map below. Please click on a route below for a more detailed route description"
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on August 24, 2016, 10:47:39 am

Maybe as a direct consequence of living in a hillier country than you,  I'd say 50% of people i meet when they first discover I'm a climber ask how many of the munros I've  done. Nowadays,  I'm assuming because I'm older they ask if I've done them all.  Granted,  some people do understand what the word climb means,  so they ask how high I've climbed,  or if I've done many of the 5000m peaks.

Interesting. Thanks
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: SamT on August 24, 2016, 10:50:34 am
There you go again....

Ok I see your points though if actual hill climbers/walkers prefer it to the status quo then I am inclined to vote in favour of the rebrand but open to what is said at the Area Meet on both sides

why did you feel the need to put 'hill climbers' in your sentence.  In any other thread/discussion, you would have just put 'walkers'.

Imagine the 6pm news, what would they say... "Today, walkers and ramblers gathered at the historic plaque, near Hayfield to mark the anniversary of the Kinder Mass Trespass"   

They would just never use the phrase 'hill climbers' , its simply not part of common parlance.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on August 24, 2016, 10:54:59 am
I actually wrote it without thinking then it amused me to leave it in and add "/climbers"

We get annoyed with news reports when they say climbers died in Snowdonia when they are walkers. If the public perception is that hill walking is interchangeable with climbing and part of the reason is to be more understandable to the non-climbing public then the rebrand makes sense
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: dave on August 24, 2016, 11:07:38 am
So throw away the BMC existing strong brand to make it easier for lazy journos to write articles? Bonkers. First Brexit, then Mrs Browns Boys gets best sitcom, and now this.

Anyway does anyone want anything from the shops? I'm just nipping out for a climb up the road.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: SA Chris on August 24, 2016, 11:09:02 am
Maybe as a direct consequence of living in a hillier country than you, 

That's a bit of a hillier than thou attitude surely?
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: tomtom on August 24, 2016, 11:12:02 am
Anyway does anyone want anything from the shops? I'm just nipping out for a climb up the road.

Thats quite believable in Sheffield. In Hull - impossible.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: T_B on August 24, 2016, 11:13:02 am
If this is supposed to be a 're-brand' then I think the powers that be have misunderstood what a brand is. A brand isn't a fancy logo and name. What defines a brand is what it does - in the case of the BMC, securing access (which the membership consistently says is the most important role of the organisation), providing it's membership with specialist insurance etc. The more I think about it, the more I think Climb Britain is not right. What has Climb Britain got to do with selling travel insurance for overseas ski touring, for example? Climb Britain would sound right if the organisation primarily represented the interests of competition climbers, but it doesn't. Access is not sexy and the BMC doesn't need to look cutting edge or modern in its branding.

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".
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on August 24, 2016, 11:25:14 am
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.It seems to me that any re-brand whether successful or otherwise is going to have to overcome inertia and resistance to change. If nothing else it is the first time in ages that it has got people talking about the BMC as opposed to the usuakl indifference so from that perspective already a partial success.   

The BMC in what it does wont change. Clearly there must be re-brands that are successful if the old one appears (at least to some) worn out or not communicative fully of the organisations work. As a Marketing guru can you help here in giving examples of quasi-public sector or charity rebrands that have been successful ie better representative of the organisation internally and externally rather than ones that have gone wrong (Consignia)?   

Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: dave on August 24, 2016, 11:31:54 am
The BMC in what it does wont change.

Hence why a rebrand is utterly pointless, it will gain the BMC nothing and lose them so much. And it makes it look like the top brass hold the members and public in complete contempt.

That's quite believable in Sheffield. In Hull - impossible.

Yeah that's true, I often see folk struggling with the gradients around here when they are out climbing the dog.

Also, what T_B said.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: petejh on August 24, 2016, 02:13:12 pm
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".

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.

Well then I can only imagine they were being polite and got swept along with events, because it's clearly a bollocks-up of a re-brand.


I still don't understand why, if the word Climb is deemed so crucial for conveying who this organisation represents; and the organisation has the acronym 'BMC' with the 'C' currently standing for Council; and Council is felt to be an antiquated word... someone didn't think of utilising the existing strong brand The BMC and - you know - change the 'C' to stand for the word Climb instead of Council  :shrug:

And dropping the word The...

British Mountaineering & Climbing.


Or slight change of emphasis,

British Climbing & Mountaineering.


Keeping a strong existing brand while subtly re-branding to better represent all-members as per the rationale behind 'Climb Britain' - a weaker brand in most sane non-committee members' opinions.

Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: T_B on August 24, 2016, 02:19:55 pm
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".

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.

Well then I can only imagine they were being polite and got swept along with events, because it's clearly a bollocks-up of a re-brand.


I still don't understand why, if the word Climb is deemed so crucial for conveying who this organisation represents; and the organisation has the acronym 'BMC' with the 'C' currently standing for Council; and Council is felt to be an antiquated word... someone didn't think of utilising the existing strong brand The BMC and - you know - change the 'C' to stand for the word Climb instead of Council  :shrug:

And dropping the word The...

British Mountaineering & Climbing.


Or slight change of emphasis,

British Climbing & Mountaineering.


Keeping a strong existing brand while subtly re-branding to better represent all-members as per the rationale behind 'Climb Britain' - a weaker brand in most sane non-committee members' opinions.

+ 1
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: James Malloch on August 24, 2016, 02:24:46 pm
Anyway does anyone want anything from the shops? I'm just nipping out for a climb up the road.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DaoYSiNDnI0
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Teaboy on August 24, 2016, 03:12:35 pm
However, people do climb stairs too, so I am very concerned that this might be TOO inclusive and mean that people at work who decide to use the stairwell rather than the elevator may feel entitled to claim the same passtime as myself.


As long as they pay their subs does it matter?

I've never used the word mountaineering to describe what I do even when I have been mountaineering. I've often said that I've climbed a hill even when I just walked up it. I only ever see people described mountaineers on Twitter profiles were outdoor dilettantes are trying to promote themselves, you know "Adventurer, mountaineer, brand ambassador for Ethel Austin and first person to climb Mont Blanc with a flaming torch up my arse" type of thing.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Will Hunt on August 24, 2016, 03:17:22 pm
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.

Jesus fuck, Pete! Look at that! We've agreed about something!  :o

Let's agree to forget about this and pretend it never happened.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: SA Chris on August 24, 2016, 04:18:42 pm
first person to climb Mont Blanc with a flaming torch up my arse"

An impressive feat, well done!
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Offwidth on August 24, 2016, 06:03:12 pm
I like Climb Britain.

However, people do climb stairs too, so I am very concerned that this might be TOO inclusive and mean that people at work who decide to use the stairwell rather than the elevator may feel entitled to claim the same passtime as myself.

I'm not a member - but I bet I live closer to their secretive HQ eyrie in Manchester than any of you :p So if they change their logo permanently, my eyes ywill be scarred every time I walk past to go to the co-op to pick up some Stella.

Yours confusedly from West Didsbury.

You just don't get it: most stairs are the indoor version of hill climbing. They started as quarried or otherwise constructed ways of being able to walk up slopes or walls (rather than walking round). Indoors they were mainly for the rich but they spread over time and for decades now access to indoor and outdoor stairs have been common all over the UK (even the world) and there is massive participation in climbing them. There is a clear market oportunity for Climb Stairs in the CB brand and maybe one day it might make the IOC list.

On a different matter this appeared next door (maybe UKB should complain):

"
Please visit the BMC website for a message from BMC president Rehan Siddiqui outlining the rebranding consultation process which will be conducted over the coming months.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-and-climb-britain-next-steps

"
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on August 24, 2016, 08:50:25 pm
And dropping the word The...

https://youtu.be/PEgk2v6KntY
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: johnx2 on August 25, 2016, 11:57:43 am
nobody says 'I climbed Win Hill the other day', they'd say, 'I went up Win Hill the other day' , We went up Snowdon, We went up Ben Nevis,

Objective: find out the relative popularity of the phrases "I climbed X" and "I went up X" in the field of hillwalking
Design: google search on these phrases for selected hills
Outcome Measure: number of hits
Results:  "I climbed Win Hill" - 3 hits; "I went up Win Hill" - 5 hits; "I climbed Ben Nevis" - 2280 hits; "I went up Ben Nevis" - 3240 hits
Conclusion: I have far too much time on my fucking hands...
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: SamT on August 25, 2016, 12:04:00 pm
  :lol:

Similarly - I googled "Hill Climbers" and "hill walkers"

hill climbers seemed to give results to do with razzing cars and bikes up steep hills etc or abs workouts, whereas "hill walkers" obviously returned what you'd expect, loads of rambling/walking type stuff.

Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: dave on August 25, 2016, 12:33:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: andy_e on August 25, 2016, 12:54:00 pm
http://www.googlefight.co.uk/hill+walking-vs-hill+climbing.php

EDIT: Not sure I trust this site though: http://www.googlefight.co.uk/shark-vs-oak.php
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: tomtom on August 25, 2016, 01:07:56 pm
C'mon then... any takers?

http://www.googlefight.co.uk/andy-vs-tom.php
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: johnx2 on August 25, 2016, 01:09:28 pm
http://www.googlefight.co.uk/mountain+walking-vs-mountain+climbing.php
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on August 25, 2016, 06:36:44 pm
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.  :wank:

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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: danm on August 25, 2016, 07:01:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: dave on August 25, 2016, 08:10:09 pm
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?
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: dave on August 25, 2016, 08:17:07 pm
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.  :wank:


Sorry, out of context?
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: lagerstarfish on August 25, 2016, 08:32:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: danm on August 26, 2016, 12:00:55 am
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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: chris j on August 26, 2016, 07:06:39 am
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?
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Oldmanmatt on August 26, 2016, 09:29:35 am
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. 
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Will Hunt on August 26, 2016, 10:08:32 am
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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: iain on August 26, 2016, 10:42:51 am
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 (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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on August 26, 2016, 11:23:01 am
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
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Will Hunt on August 26, 2016, 11:28:05 am
I'm dreading this area meet. A confusing disarray of nuanced opinions, slinging shit at any BMC representative that shows up is my guess.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: tomtom on August 26, 2016, 01:26:39 pm
I am opposed to numbeover-caffeinated sugary drink companyet points.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: tomtom on August 26, 2016, 01:27:37 pm
I am opposed to numbeover-caffeinated sugary drink companyet points.

Ha quality! I wrote I am opposed to number based bullet points...
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: SA Chris on August 26, 2016, 02:10:35 pm
That's funny.

What would happen if i wrote desiover-caffeinated sugary drink companyshit?
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: SA Chris on August 26, 2016, 02:11:49 pm
:)
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: highrepute on August 26, 2016, 02:24:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: kelvin on August 27, 2016, 07:45:05 am
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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Will Hunt on September 06, 2016, 02:00:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: andy popp on September 06, 2016, 02:24:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Johnny Brown on September 06, 2016, 06:10:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Paul B on September 06, 2016, 07:51:57 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).
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: tomtom on September 06, 2016, 09:24:29 pm
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).
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: chris j on September 06, 2016, 10:19:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Will Hunt on 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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: creedence on 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.



Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: tomtom on 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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: creedence on 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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on 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.     

         



     
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on 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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Will Hunt on 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
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: GraemeA on 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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on 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? 
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: GraemeA on 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).
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on 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
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Offwidth on 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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Paul B on 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?
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Will Hunt on 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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: tomtom on 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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: r-man on 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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Will Hunt on 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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: r-man on September 07, 2016, 07:46:22 pm
Yeah, I meant the Lancs lot. They seem to be thriving.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Will Hunt on 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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: highrepute on 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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Will Hunt on 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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: dave on 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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Paul B on September 09, 2016, 10:32:25 am
A quick vote following the presentation (to gauge feeling) might save you all a very long evening!
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: cofe on September 09, 2016, 10:41:37 am
I'd like to think important stuff like access will still take priority.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: duncan on 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.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on September 09, 2016, 12:20:14 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.

Lock in !   :pissed:
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: shark on September 15, 2016, 09:29:54 am
The Peak Area meet took place last night and was the last of the Area Meets to discuss the rebrand before it goes back to National Council on Saturday.

There were some cringey histrionics, set speeches and accusations of deception as well as some good viewpoints and views. Overall the meeting was fairly orderly in the circumstances.

Dave Turnbull gave a good down-to-earth presentation despite a chest infection but like Hilary Clinton he struggled manfully on. He was supported by President Rehan "Chuckle Brother" Siddiqui. Rob Greenwood the Chair had clearly taken the occasion seriously as he had a haircut.

At the end of the Q&A's a "non-binding-get-a-feel-for-the-feeling-in the-room" vote was taken on four options. 1.No change 2. Endorse the rebrand 3. Use the brand in other ways 4. An alternative brand name

Option 3 got a slight majority. Dave revealed that in the other Area Meets a similar vote was more strongly in favour of Option 3.

This now goes back to National Council on Saturday for reconsideration. Unless they are insane the Council will endorse Option 3 and probably come up with a proposal or a choice of options that encapsulates Option 3.

No doubt the proposals will be communicated online and will be discussed at the next Area Meet and depending in the proposal/s may go to a final vote at the AGM.

Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: highrepute on September 15, 2016, 10:13:55 am
Thanks Shark.

Didn't make it down as work was a bit full on and couldn't face more meetings.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: Offwidth on September 15, 2016, 10:55:35 am
Thanks (and loving your work).
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: SA Chris on September 23, 2016, 02:56:59 pm
It's official.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/rebranding-consultation-update-decision

I'm annoyed I really like Climb Britain ;)
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: dave on September 23, 2016, 03:07:53 pm
I bet there's a crate full of unworn Climb Britain t-shirts somewhere that just became collectors items.
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: SA Chris on September 23, 2016, 03:17:37 pm
I bet there's a crate full of unworn Climb Britain t-shirts somewhere that just became collectors items.

In a pile next to these

http://www.ebay.com/itm/CHICAGO-2016-OLYMPIC-GAMES-T-Shirt-Not-Rio-Candidate-City-Failed-Bid-LOGO-/152231959380?hash=item2371bb5b54
Title: Re: Climb Britain
Post by: cheque on September 23, 2016, 03:27:46 pm
Hopefully no vehicles were prematurely painted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fCf8RAco4o
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal