Quote from: Will Hunt on September 06, 2016, 02:00:19 pmThis 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.Quote from: Will Hunt on September 06, 2016, 02:00:19 pm3. 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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
Quote from: tomtom on September 06, 2016, 09:24:29 pmWhy 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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: GraemeA on September 07, 2016, 11:35:34 amShark - 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?
Quote from: shark on September 07, 2016, 12:02:13 pmQuote from: GraemeA on September 07, 2016, 11:35:34 amShark - 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).
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
Interesting post Paul. I didn't realise you were in the room, you should have come and said hello!
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.
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?
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 walkersVotes re the specific questions as follows:-Remain as BMC – no rebrand – 8 votesFull rebrand to Climb Britain – 11 votesStay as BMC & find other use for Climb Britain – 35 votesOther name options – 5 votesAttendees able to vote for as few/many of the options as they wished. Please see pages 2 & 3 re comments made.
BMC Yorkshire Area Meeting 5 September 2016.Discussion of Rebranding proposal – Comments madeLack 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 hadconsulted their members.One respondent’s club (national with a lot of members) had consulted its members & virtually none were in favour of therebrand.Observation that Mountaineering Scotland had asked its members first re its rebrand & received few objections – felt tobe because the members had had the opportunity to comment. In the case of the BMC’s rebrand proposal it was seen ashaving 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 outby 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 prevailingopinion 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 lineDon’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 aclimbing/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 tomountains & crags. In this context not sure about the focus on attracting indoor climbers – they are sometimesindoors/gym type of people. (This from someone who is a climber & hill walkers & uses indoor walls). However can seethe 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. Oneof 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 themfrom 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 etcBranding is very important but needs to be very specific. If Climb Britain & its variants were adopted the names wouldneed to be used under the BMC umbrella. The name BMC has gravitas.3BMC 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 beenprior 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, growingsport etc. If BMC does nothing there is a serious risk of becoming less relevant & less influential. Wrong to staystationary & 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 ofrebranding? Stick with what we’ve got. Likes logo & perhaps that could be used for some specific promotion.