UKH

Today the BMC has announced a change of name to 'Climb Britain', while its Scottish equivalent the MCofS will be re-named 'Mountaineering Scotland'.

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

You cannot possibly be serious.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Naff, totally naff..............

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I had to check the date.

D

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Hmmm not particularly impressed. What was wrong with BMC in the first place and why do all the members only hear about it after it's been re-branded?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

It'll be matching blazers to work from now on and any disreputal climbers will be out pretty dam quickly!

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Catchy as anything! Climb Britain! Rolls off the tongue.

Hurm, interesting to see how this one plays out...

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

After checking its not April 1st I'm trying to be open minded. But at best they have re branded to something less formal, at worst its a name that can't be taken seriously.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I knew something was on the cards, but this just sounds ridiculous.

John

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Yay! Let's all just 'Dumb it Down' then eh?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

If only someone hadn't pinched the name 'UK Climbing'...

T.

In reply to UKC/UKH News: No trad climbing anywhere within a year toproping or bolts everywhere in the interests of "Health and Safety"

In reply to UKC/UKH News:
I wish they'd make insurance cheaper instead.

I can imagine the conversation though:

"We need to attract new members."

"Okay, let's improve what we do so it appeals to current members and it's one of the first things they recommend someone to join."

"Nah, let's rebrand, then the new person won't know it was us that was being moaned about. We can then all get new kit with the logo on it as well."

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I think the logo looks rather fine!

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Shouldn't the membership of had a chance to vote on the change?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:
This is what happens when you listen to companies called 'b-focused' and 'Thinkfarm' for f-sake...

But, I guess this is reflecting a wider shift: in these neoliberal times, it doesn't fit that the BMC is conceived of as a "council" - i.e. a collective forum through which mountaineers can engage in dialogue with each other and be represented in issues effecting them. I mean, that's almost like having a union! No... now it's a "brand", and its brand image must be rigorously "consumer tested" to improve "reach"... ...how much of our dues, by the by, went on that "9 month long independent study", ending in the lame conclusion "well, you climb, duh!?"

And what's in a name? Personally, I don't see how 'climb' is more representative of, e.g. hikers, alpinists, etc., than 'mountaineering'. But, 'mountaineering' is a noun, whilst 'climb' is a verb - in this context, an imperative: "CLIMB!" And, 'British' is an adjective, whilst 'Britain' is noun: what was mere description, easily abbreviated (BMC), is brought into focus as an assertive presence - for nothing sells like a good bit of jingoism. Especially when the elegant red mountain logo and text is reworked in the colours of Team GB.

Support your troops! Eat British! Climb Britain! Rah!

So, the Council - as forum for debate and representative committee - is now reworked as a nationalistic command, more in line with the general authoritarian tenor of our times.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I would have added some punctuation.

"Climb, Britain!"

You can have that for free.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:
"Was there a new name that could clearly convey all our core beliefs? After a nine-month independent study, sports marketing specialists b-focused and design agency Thinkfarm found the answer."

Nine months? Wow.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

BMC works, a waste of time and money to change it ; when things work, leave them alone. There is lots more they could be doing with the money and resource.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Agree with all the above, I think it sounds naff and I think it was/is a waste of money.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Should have had a referendum. That would have sorted it.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

As a non-UK member I quite like the change. It's simple, it's clear and it shows directly what it stands for.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

In a surprisingly honest interview, the head of the exBMC explained; "we receive some funding from sport England, but they only give it to us if there is a chance that we'll produce some gold medal athletes for the Olympics. Indoor sport climbing is the only Olympic sport, so we tried, putting up the "check your knot," signs at walls to show then that we did something, but they kept asking about our name, and why we cared about mountaineering so much when they didn't fund us for that. We hired a consultant to blame for the decision, but to protect our funding and our jobs, we changed the name."

In reply to JR_NL:


That's what worries me. It's clearly an sport funding motivated rebranding which narrows the scope of the organisation, deprioritising non-competitive aspects like traditional mountaineering and hillwalking and emphasising competitive sport climbing.

It lacks excitement, it lacks romance, it lacks danger.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Shouldn't it now be called Climb England and Northern Ireland?

British to me, means all four areas, so a bit odd that the BMC is now called Climb Wales and Scotland is called something else.

I second the chap above who said about Mountaineering being a more appropriate word to use. You've just disenfranchised a whole chunk of user base based on a name change.

Its irrelevant to me, as I do climb.

I also wonder how much this change has to do with the potential reality that climbing will hit the olympics (be great if it does).

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Bit surprised... Don't mind the name that much, but was this discussed at an AGM or put to members in some way? I've never really heard of an organisation like that changing its name without talking to its members.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

What I didn't like, apart from the name change which has been discussed and denounced enough already, was the phrase in the email I received, "after more than 70 years trading as the British Mountaineering Council...."

Whilst the use of the word "trading" may technically be correct, I don't know, it is a poor way to describe an organisation that is intended to represent walkers, climbers and other outdoor activities. It is not a business, even though they sell products that may be of use to relevant groups, but a representative and supporting organisation.

What a load of bo%%0*** as far as I am concerned.

In reply to jonnie3430:


Explains that the olympic bid is bad news and is forcing the BMC to move away from their core roles to chase funding.

Sod it, disband the BMC then or start a new section called BFIC (British Federation of Indoor Climbers).. As a BMC member i'd rather the focus is on access and outdoor climbing/walking/etc rather than it mutating into a body that primarily is interested in getting medals.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

As if the UK couldn't be dumbed down any more....

In reply to Dave Garnett:


I get that it prioritises other non-competitive aspects and I agree with you on that. On the other hand, (non-competitive) sport climbing is on the rise and in my view mountaineering doesn't cover that. I don't feel that my pulling on plastic or doing single pitch sport routes really classify as mountaineering, so either way some parts aren't covered as well.

What is 'it' exactly? If it's traditional mountaineering and hillwalking I can see what your getting at (though not agree), if it's the new name I disagree, as I think that the new name is better in that regard.

Of course my view is influenced being a sport climber and an outsider. For me I don't have any nostalgic feelings for the name BMC so I see it as a good change, but I can see that being different to others

In reply to haydn:

"b-focused" and "Thinkfarm".

Jesus. Nathan Barley was busy I suppose. :-/

In reply to JR_NL:


Yes, it does. Hill-walkers no longer welcome.

In reply to Steve nevers:

I agree with what you say.

From a certain perspective, this change and the move for the BMC, sorry CB, to indoor climbing and medal chasing could be a good thing for those of us who climb outside. There will be less encouragement for indoor climbers to move outdoors as that is nothing to do with competitions, meaning fewer climbers at the crags as everyone is inside training.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Really think this is a terrible terrible idea. And so much of what the BMC has said gives the game away. 'Trading'... GRRRRR! I was just about to renew my membership, I won't now.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Fair point, but if it is the British Mountaineering Council, are us indoor climbers welcome?

In reply to JayPee630:


That is one of the first things I thought as well. But then thought "oh what about my third party liability for Cheddar?"

I would really like the CB to come out and say they are still as committed towards non competition climbing and other activities as they have have always been. Fine, there is a new kid on the block - competitions, which are great. I love watching the World Cup, but the vast majority of BMC / CB members have probably never entered a competition and never will do. Are we still going to be represented and supported as before?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Terrible name. I agree council sounds stuffy, but if it has to go then why not just British Mountaineering, or British Mountaineering Club since "BMC" is so well known?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I for one welcome our new indoor overlords.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

And.... how much did that logo cost? I'm no designer, but that font is ugly, the colour scheme and mountain motif are obvious and uninteresting.
Above this, I agree with everything people have said, the name is terrible. It alienates walkers and other mountain and outdoor uses that don't identify with 'climb' and clearly signals a move towards medal grabbing, losing all the history of the council. i fear they'll drive away the old guard and their experience and custodianship of heritage and legacy in favour of new blood, to the detriment of the sport and our outdoor spaces. I fear further that they have done this in full knowledge of what it will do.

In reply to JayPee630:


same here, I only renew as a course of habit, I now have an excuse to cancel my direct debit

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Just like the brilliant idea the suits had when they changed the name Royal Mail to Consignia, how did that go?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Sounds cheap and rubbish like it's a name for some short term fund raising event rather than the national governing body for climbing for decades to come. It gives the organisation no weight, no authority in the name.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Regardless of how crap/silly/fantastic vision of the future the name/logo/image/branding etc is, it is still just a name change (probably to get some money). I would be incredibly surprised if this meant any actual change in the organization that wouldn't have happened anyway. Plus while the old name had historic value which I wouldn't have thrown away, 'climb' is broader than 'mountaineering' - knocking off single pitch routes at Stanage (probably the most popular activity of BMC members outdoors?) is hardly mountaineering

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

What about a membership vote?

I propose 'Climby McClimb Face'.

In reply to andrewmcleod:

they've done away with something historic which incorporates everyone they supposedly lobby for, for money, to buy medals at the expense of walkers etc. id say id be surprised if they didn't change fundamentally from what they were previously to a sport climbing only federation. still, that does mean there would be space for a new organisation, some kind of council that represents all mountain users of Britian...?

Plus while the old name had historic value which I wouldn't have thrown away, 'climb' is broader than 'mountaineering' - knocking off single pitch routes at Stanage (probably the most popular activity of BMC members outdoors?) is hardly mountaineering

climb, in my opinion is much narrower. climbing involves going vertically up. mountaineering includes all the skills required to get you to and up a mountain.


mountain sports UK would have been better and ticked the boxes they are trying to tick

In reply to andrewmcleod:

Stanage single pitchers don't struggle to understand that the BMC represents them ... hill walkers might with Climb Britain. Also have you ever costed the complete change of a visual identity in an organisation... stationary, banners, web, changeover arrangements etc? I bet you won't find many takers in the BMC membership who would prefer spending in that area without good reasons. The key question is: what are the benefits that outweigh the costs?

I do wonder if they have hedged their bets on Brexit by recognising Scotland may not be in Britain much longer.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Absolutely awful idea. Looks like an ape of ClimbUK (i.e. the commercial company operating Big Rock and the Beacon), and shows a huge disregard for hillwalkers.

In reply to broken spectre:

The brand would be fine for a new-startup operator of climbing activities or artificial climbing walls.

Not for a historic and respected organisation like the BMC.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

That sounds very climbing oriented. What about the hill walkers and mountaineers?
I've never understood why Scotland has a separate mountaineering body either!?! Aren't they part of Britain? This week anyway...

In reply to JR_NL:

I'd say by the amount of time, money and coverage they spend on covering indoor events and international competitions that it's very obvious that indoor climbers are welcome.

My gut instinct when I heard this was that I didn't like it. But as someone who was involved in running a University Club when it was forced to drop the Mountaineering portion of its name, I have first-hand experience of a name change not actually altering what the club is, does or what it stands for. I more than understand the concern, but if the BMC keep doing the things that I value most, then I can put up with a re-brand.

However, I wish we could have had a little more honesty and forewarning from the BMC. I suspect this has come as a result of "advice" from Sport England to prepare for Olympics...etc and ensure funding. I find it hard to believe that it's to help the BMC reach out to younger people, because they actually do a fantastic job of that. In the last ten years, they've modernised tremendously and are actually very good at staying ahead of the curve in terms of online technologies. To suggest they need a re-brand to appeal to them just because they're more focussed on indoor climbing than previous generations is clearly nonsense.

PS Mountaineering seems more inclusive for hill walkers, trail runners...etc to me and writing "climb hills" under your logo won't change that. Seems like we're swapping one imperfect name for another in that regard.

In reply to JR_NL:

No, it doesn't. It doesn't mention hillwalking.

The only people who refer to hillwalking as climbing (e.g. "climbing Snowdon") are people who don't actually take part in the activity and the odd tourist.

In reply to Jonathan:

TBH, "Mountaineering Britain" wouldn't sound terrible, if they really want to go that way.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

"Hi Mr Crag Owner, someone from Climb Britain is on the phone to negotiate access for erm... climbers."

It just doesn't have the same weight as the British Mountaineering Council.

It looks like the credibility of the organisation and the interests of outdoor climbers are being sacrificed for a catchy name to impress Sport England and potentially UK Sport with the Olympics in mind.

Surely sport climbing is strong enough to stand on its own beside the likes of golf or synchronized swimming without having to resort to gimmicks?

*If this isn't a huge troll, which is what it looks like*

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Crikey everyone.. Relax!!

Yeah, perhaps the new fangled make over doesn't sit well with every faction of the outdoor demographic. However, the BMC (as it was) could be perceived as a fusty cardiganed institution - handing out grants to Cambridge undergraduates. Bearded, pipe smoking professors indulging the ambitions of the elite. What's wrong with a little make over once every century or so?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Good, I like it.

It reflects the majority of its members well: Brits who walk up UK hills or do some rock/winter climbing in the UK. None of which is mountaineering.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

We know several BMC bods read the forums and aren't slow to offer an opinion. Has there been a media strategy memo sent round today? No comment or social media other than through our official communications partners Willoughby, Willoughby, Gladbetook and Wretches?

The change is obviously geared at funding, however this may be one small step towards constitutional change. At present the BMC / Climb Britian is a 'representative' body. I.e. You / we tell our representatives what they should focus on, but often some Sports funding is/was commonly only awarded to 'Governing' bodies........which obviously turns the relationship around.

Does anyone know is competitive sports funding still only given to governing organisations.......?

In reply to ScottTalbot:



They'll have to re-do their logo again to take out the blue bit when Scotland "Sexits"!!

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

To be formally launched at Kendal Mountain Festival in early December?

KMF is 17th-20th November I believe - any chance of a check & correction if needed UKC?

In reply to UKC/UKH News: As a member of the BMC I am a bit p*ssed off that the membership wasn't consulted. Maybe not to the level of which name do you prefer, but at least to the "we're thinking of changing name because of a, b, c, etc. what are your thoughts".

This has been given to us as a fait acompli which isn't a very good way to run a representative body.

In reply to Steve nevers:


Well said, have a like.

In reply to Purple:

You're quite right, not sure where Dan got early December from.

I'll change that now.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Has anyone told niall grimes as he might have to change the title of his next book

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

What a waste of time and money, so that's why the subs were increased!

They should concentrate of their core activity - mountaineering, and leave indoor climbing and competitions to others.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:
Re the question of hill wlakers. The BMC say:

Today the BMC announced it will be changing its name to £Climb Britain£. Many walkers may hear this new name and wonder if it applies to them.

The answer is that of course it does. £Climb£ is not the same as £climbing£.

The BMC is a broad cathedral of people. The majority of our members say hill walking is their main activity, but there are also climbers, boulderers, indoor climbers and mountaineers, and many people who are a mix of all the above.

What we have in common is that we all climb stuff. We represent a continuum of activities which vary in style but all share challenge and adventure as essential characteristics. Walking is a hugely important part of this mix.

And the new name will not affect the vital work we do to protect the rights of ordinary people to access the countryside and look after the mountain landscape, which many walkers value and benefit from.

More: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/what-climb-britain-means-for-walkers

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I always thought the old logo was a great bit of graphic design. Surprising for bmc.
It's hard to come up with a clean logo without looking like a million other outdoors logos.
Now as others have said it smacks of team gb. The typeface is terrible.

Who made this decision and who was consulted?

The BMC is a representative, democratic organisation.

Who are the current on National Council Representatives(elected by the National Council) on the Executive Committee?

Was this decision ever discussed by our democratically elected representatives at National council? If so, were the area committees consulted?

I can think of no reason why the area committees were not consulted regarding such a large, costly and controversial change, other than that the area committees might have voted for the 'wrong' outcome.

I'm speculating, and I have no idea about who is currently involved, but if it is true that the national council was not consulted(nor area's at least informed), you can bet that the reasons for the change to Climb Britain would have been felt to be seen as detrimental to the interests of mountaineers and hill walkers.

My initial suspicion would be that the name change is a required step towards the single national GOVERNING body that the Olympic committee demands.

I'd like some assurance that this isn't a case of the tail wagging the dog?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Terrible idea, and as has been said Mountaineering is much more inclusive a name for all disciplines.

I agree that it's disgusting that the Membership was not consulted .. I shall seriously consider not rejoining when the membership sub comes up for renewal.

Are April Fools jokes only limited to April 1st!!!

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

In Ireland almost everything has become " "something" Ireland ". The Mountaineering Council of Ireland became "Mountaineering Ireland" and we have "Canoeing Ireland" "Swim Ireland" ... the list goes on even to government bodies. The funders seem to insist on it! It all seems very neo-liberal. Take the "council" out of the name and the the association of democracy goes with it.

In reply to Michael Hood:

The BMC hasn't been a representative body for a long time. For ages they have presented themselves as a governing body rather than a representative body - I suspect because of the way Sport Englan funding is handed out.

I did always wonder if they actually had a mandate for the change from the membership, who are technically supposed to be in control of the company.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Word is "Summit" magazine will be getting a rebrand too, henceforth members can expect a copy of "That yellow 7b on the overhang" magazine in the post. :p

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

What monies have been spent on the consultancy with b-focussed and Thinkfarm? What additional spend will be required on re-branding? What assets will be written down/un-used due to the BMC name & logo no longer being used?

As a long-term member of the BMC I have previously felt engaged and informed about the changes, their drivers and justification of the change. I do not feel engaged or informed about the change to "Climb Britain" or the reasons/justifications for it happening.

How will that gap in engagement and the cost questions above be addressed?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

This has to be a joke ...

http://www.b-focused.com/who-we-are-2/

In reply to chuffer:


Spot on, they seem far more interested in maintaining themselves than listening to their members.

In reply to Cobbler:

>


I really hope this is the case. But it's (forlorn) hope rather than expectation

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

After 6 months they come up with Climb Britain, someone turn the lights off we're f**ked!!

In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:



Ta Rob.

In reply to Cobbler:

Is not the MTA more of a Governing Body than the BMC?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

How much of our subscription funds were invested/wasted on the consultancy and rebrand?

How much more will be invested/wasted in the subsequent marketing of the new brand that does exactly what the old one did.

Jobs for the boys methinks, it is all starting to whiff of politics and big business to me.

Not keen at all, we need ken Wilson now more than ever.

In reply to muppetfilter:

That is horrible! I don't know whether to laugh or puke.

In reply to 3leggeddog:

Not to mention the fact it looks like a logo/design that was knocked up in ten minutes.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

In the news item on their website they have a link for "The process that led to Climb Britain". I somewhat naively thought this would describe things like why they thought name change was important in the first place, who was consulted, what they needed to do from a legal perspective, how they got feedback from members etc. You know, the process. Instead it just appears to be bs from one of the companies involved. I'm not against this change if it's properly justified and the interested parties (especially the members) are properly consulted. At the moment I can see no proper justification from the BMC and nothing about the consultations they have undertook. Seems there's been a complete lack of respect for members. I stopped attending area meeting several years ago because it seemed like normal members were ignored. Good to see nothing has changed.

This has caused me to post on UKC for the first time in years!

In reply to Neil Williams:



I beg to differ. I regularly hill walk and often climb Snowdon, or any other steep hill that takes my fancy. As far as I'm concerned, climb means 'go up'. However, I probably am an odd tourist so maybe you have a point.

Still a crap name and a crap logo though...

In reply to AymanC:



Must have got a job lot from Channel 4.

Obviously the in look - these chiselled fonts. Ready to be out of date in a few years.

In reply to 3leggeddog:
And where's Dennis Grey when you need him?

In reply to mark_wellin:


Scotland and Northern Ireland might not have been so keen on the all encompassing 'UK'!

Not sure who covers the representation of climbers and hill walkers in the channel isles and other Crown Dependencies!

In reply to jonnie3430:

Do you have a link to that interview please? Sounds interesting.

In reply to Bellie:

Yup and will then need more money spent on updating the design.

And with this change did anyone see any polls or know anyone that was asked? Was anything in Summit or on here? Seems very odd and poor form for the BMC or the company to not have actually asked members or the climbing community...

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Looks like they've just gone for the best google search options "climb" "Britain"

In reply to AymanC:


Hardly surprising as 'b-focused' did the Team GB branding as well.....

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Any Lawyers in the House?

Does the Council (ie BMC) have the authority to change it's name without consulting the membership or is a decision such as this ultra vires?

In reply to MooseMouse:

given climbbritain.co.uk was registered by the BMC in March maybe it is an April fool but just subject to some delays ?

In reply to baron:


And where's The Angry Corrie when you need it?

At least the MCofS change isn't so grim, and doesn't appear to involve a new logo as yet. Re consultants, there was a story 15 or so years ago, when the YHA was having a major revamp and in due course hit choppy financial waters and closed various hostels, that it had employed consultants who declined to stay in any of the hostels even for free, opted instead for fairly fancy hotels and then billed the YHA. I seem to recall there was even mention of an aeroplane having been hired. This might have been an apocryphal or embellished story, but I was told it by a well-connected (and well disgruntled) person in hostelling circles. Hiring consultants does usually seem to take a fair wodge of dosh out of the organisation in question, however it happens.

In reply to Trangia:
It's rebranding, rather than an official name change, so I suspect membership consultation not required. And it's a nice long time to the next ago, so I'm guessing they're hoping the fuss will have died down by then. Seems pretty cynical to me.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

This has to be an elaborate troll... surely? No one in their right mind would change a perfectly good and well respected name to something as naff as that? And come up with an incredibly badly drawn soulless logo from the 80s - seriously, it looks like the product of a junior school competition. Just naff, naff, naff...

In reply to JayPee630:

Interesting... and maybe unrelated, but an organisation I do work for, announced it was undergoing a consultation regarding a rebrand, citing reach and all that. I thought it was an odd decision for them to do so (for reasons I won't go into).

They receive significant funding from Sport England.

In reply to SteveM:

My guess is that the re-branding will cost about the same as when they last changed the logo, only the internet didn't really exist in those days so no one whinged That re-branding was early 2000's from memory and stuff like old stationary was still used for all sorts of stuff until it ran out.

Ps I think the new logo is rubbish and the new name isn't right.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

WTF is that about?????

BMC had really credibility. This sounds like the next branch of the odious Sports Direct brand

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I like it and I like the logo too. It feels more modern and 'cool'. If that makes me too young and trendy then I'll take it

In reply to Trangia:

From memory the Articles need AGM approval for change, so my guess is that the BMC is still legally the BMC but will henceforth be known as as CB. In much the same way as my company has a legal name but we can change the 'Trading As' name without changing the Articles.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Did they employ people like .... Susan Hunt

Susan is a Board level strategist with unrivalled experience in global marketing, brand development, sponsorship and corporate affairs. She has represented rights holders including UK Athletics, and the Delhi 2010 and Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games among others.

Highly experienced sales consultant and negotiator who understands the UK marketplace and more recently provides access and support in India.
Susan is as comfortable in a pair of Jimmy Choos as she is climbing up Mount Everest – or any other mountain peak around the world.

Its fab to know BMC subscriptions went to fund posh shoe wearing 8000M climbers ...

In reply to muppetfilter:

I have no idea as I have never heard of her.

But which of my points are you responding to?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I climb stairs, does that count?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I know it's a small point in the large mess of the whole thing, but the use of red, white, and blue really rankles with me in the recent Brexit and rise of petty nationalism.

In reply to Graham Booth:

>

>This sounds like the next branch of the odious Sports Direct brand

you've hit the nail on the head

In reply to muppetfilter:

Or, there's Emily Watkinson who "In her spare time, Ems can be found clad in wet weather gear walking (struggling) up a mountainside, or else (preferably) on the sofa watching a Test Match."


Maybe they should have renamed it as 'Struggling Britain'

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

On the plus side, Barrow Mountaineering [and Ski..] Club will finally be able to claim their rightful acronym.

In reply to Si dH:


Alas you undermined yourself by using the term 'trendy'.

In reply to Glyno:

Be interested to see how much this cost. Any connections between Sport England and this rebranding company? Any connections between the company and the BMC?

Combined with no consultation it all looks very dodgy and out of order to me.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Appalling corporate sounding shite..

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Bloody c0ck wombles!

In reply to lostcat:
Come on BMC office people readers, answer these questions and issues please...

Who did you consult?
What did the membership say?
What did the winder climbing community say?
How much did it cost?
Who recommended the company you used?

In reply to Cobbler:


Now that I think about it, that's something worth questioning. Many of us are actually quite quick to say we don't all climb stuff. If I've walked up a grassy lump, I feel wrong to actually say I climbed it. I never say I climbed anything, unless I used my hands.

Someone who wrote a few books or so once said something similar: "If you have to step over a dead body half way up then it's classed as a walk. On real climbs the bodies fall to the bottom".

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Rather than ranting on here (of which I am guilty), email you questions and concerns to the BMC, it is more likely to get a response

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Indeed. Everyone can see that there is chalk dust.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:
This thread is already very long so just ignore anything that has been said before...

1. How many BMC members on these forums were asked for their input during the "nine month" study? Any at all?

2. Why "climb"? I thought the no-longer-BMC was also the national body for mountaineering in general, including hiking, bothying, ski-mountaineering and everything else people do on steep-ish terrain.

3. Why "britain"? What about the UK as a whole?

4. "Climb Britain" fails the Google test where as "British Mountaineering Club" really doesn't.

5. People expect to find "Mountain" or "Mountaineering" clubs in every land and they're typically named as such. See "Mountain Club of South Africa" and "Deutscher Alpenverein". Nobody is going to land in the UK and just guess "Oh, I should phone up the "Climb Britain" blokes to ask about access and emergency numbers." No. They'll look (probably on Google, see 4) for some sort of "Mountain" or "Mountaineering" club.

6. Are you sure it isn't April 1?

7. See 6 again. Check again.

EDIT: Before you point out that the 'C' stood for 'Council' and NOT 'Club', in my mind it has always been 'Club'. Perhaps that is the solution to the imaginary problem: change the 'C' to 'club'.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

The point i was trying to make is that precious resources have been squandered by the BMC paying to follow an agenda that hasn't either dictated by or is in the best interest of its members.

In reply to planetmarshall:


Darn.

In reply to Graeme Hammond:


He's been rebranded too; henceforth, 'he's' to be referred to as Nell Grinds.

Do yourself a favour, and don't watch the promotional twerking video.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:


Oh really? Evolved into what? What is it that's changed?

In reply to JR_NL:


If your 'NL' user name means you're from the Netherlands, maybe you were subconsciously influenced by the use of the Netherlands flag for the little mountain...

In reply to UKC/UKH News:
Hasn't anyone from the bmc/cb/ got the balls to come on this forum ?

In reply to JayPee630:






The BMC office staff will not be able to help.

The first people from whom to demand answers are those who have been elected by the national council to make sure that the executive committee operate in accordance with the the wishes of the membership and with the oversight of the national council.

These responsible are listed here;

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-executive-committee

In my opinion, for a decision such as branding and renaming the national council representatives on the committee should have, as a minimum, insisted that the decision be put to the member's elected representatives, i.e. the national council.
I would have expected there to then be a membership consultation, or at least, and information session at area meetings.

So, the people to hold to account, are not the BMC office staff, but rather first the executive committee, then the national council, as it seems it would be impossible for this decision to have escaped them.

To me, it seems obvious that there would be strong feeling about this from the membership at large and I can only assume that the executive, and probably some of the national council representatives where asleep on the job, while the machinery of the Sports Council ran (Olympic) rings around our history and heritage.

I am extremely disappointed that the executive are seeking to drop the word 'council' from the name, especially since the sports council has previously commended the BMC for its commitment to democracy.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were calls for a motion of no confidence from the membership.

In reply to jonnie3430:


Personally, I'd prefer the BMC to tell Sport England to do one.

Chasing Olympic medal prospects at all costs is not, IMHO, what the BMC, or, for that matter, other sporting bodies should be about. They should be about representing and encouraging participation, for the general health of the nation.

Sport climbing is only one part of what the BMC should be representing, and competitive sport climbing an even smaller part. It should not be able to hold the rest to ransom.

I hope the money Climb Britain will get from Sport England will cover the reduction in loss of membership fees that this change may trigger...

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I could eat a can of Alphabetti Spaghetti and a bar of Xlax and shart out a better name! The word 'mountaineering' encompasses all disciplines such as climbing, ski mountaineering, hiking, walking, alpinism, camping etc and does not exclude bouldering, sport climbing or wall climbing as they are training disciplines for mountaineering...

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Could someone/ everyone please email the BMC and or the local rep and ask for an explanation, costing and why the members weren't involved considering they pay for it? I just wrote my email and then realised my membership had lapsed. I shan't be renewing, but would love some more detail.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Im sure ill get used to the name over time but my god that logo is godawful. I could do better with word art

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

After reading the whole thread, I agree that this rebranding was precipitated by the highly likely inclusion of "Climbing" in the Olympics. I think the evidence is in abundance. The BMC, now "Climb Britain", will now proceed to mutate into a governing body of climbing. It will no longer be a representative body, focussing mainly on unity amongst members and access for members.

This is why I really hate the idea of climbing becoming an Olympic sport. With climbing out of the Olympics, competitive climbing would remain the domain of independent organisers, most of whom have a vested interest in the health of the sport itself because they make their income directly from climbers and climbing (Petzl, Black Diamond, DMM, every other climbing brand...) or from extreme sports as a concept (GoPro, Red Bull...). They could never survive off the paltry few competitive climbers and so they need to ensure that the grass-roots level is healthy and their competitions or the road to competitions will never interfere with that.

The Olympics is simply something too big. It dominates. There's too much money, there - enough to ignore the grass-roots and the silent majority, enough to feed entirely off itself.

Apart from EU certification of rated gear, climbing needs no regulation or governance. We do not need a rule-book.

What we need is a representative organisation who will keep us together, keep rogue climbers in check and smooth things over with land-owners, who might be aggrieved by those rogue members of our community.

What we need is an organisation that will put up "Check your Partner" posters in gyms and make safe climbing "cool" - something the BMC did do, although apparently only so as to appear to have "done something" for the sport.

I think the BMC might just have signed a warrant for their demise. If the future unfolds as I predict, we weekend amateurs will simply leave. (I am not a member. I am a member of the Deutscher Alpenverein, loving what they offer even if a lot of it is not applicable to me because my German isn't all that good (yet), and have also been a member of other mountain clubs in the past.) They will have no relevance outside the small group of nutters who actually care about indoor-speed-bouldering and have Olympic ambitions.

We need a new representative body to take on the charge of unity & access.

In reply to mark_wellin:

If you read the story on the BMC website, they are apparently reading ukc as they talk about the reaction to it. Apparently we're going on an exciting journey! Who knew?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Finally an issue that unites pretty much all UKC members!

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-to-change-its-name-to-climb-britain

May as well vent your frustration directly on the BMC website, make the discontent blatantly obvious to them...

In reply to toad:

They're idiots. Fantastic responses. Out of all of the above, maybe 5 have not been negative and they've have been, at best, neutral to the change.
Their answers to questions posed are simple non- answers.
Although the fact that sport England paid for the rebrand and then they assert is has nothing to do with olympics is a bald faced lie. Sport England only fund sports with a healthy participation and a realistic chance of winning a medal. Basketball fell foul of this and was scrapped

In reply to mark_wellin:

What about "the Federation for Climbers in the United Kingdom"! Sort of trips off the tongue, don't you think?

In reply to Sean Kelly:

Thinking about his I don't have a problem with the new name IF their remit was solely for the purposes of promoting sport climbing and competitions. But they could have just created a division within the BMC or a new organisation for that. Instead they've ruined something everyone quite liked, to service something not everyone likes, for an end goal that few like, by a rebrand that no one likes

In reply to muppetfilter:

It has to be surely if this makes it in Summit....

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/how-to-survive-pokemon-go-in-the-wild

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Prepare for a rant.

I know this is just a name change but what it represents is really starting to piss me off. Why does climbing need to be homogenised and polished just so it can get in the Olympics? Bugger the Olympics I like climbing as it is.

Half the reason I climb is because it's not constrained by the bollocks of normal life. You just grab your rack, go find a cliff and try and drag yourself up it. It's a bit of risk that you can have in your life, if you don't place good gear it's you that's going to get burnt. Frankly climbing is a stupid thing to do for fun but we do it anyway.

We don't a governing body from the BMC we want climbers to be the governing body and the BMC to give us a voice in land access and ethics ect nothing more. Why does the errm 'mud' that is climbing need to be rolled in corporate glitter? If it does need 'modernising' can we at least role it in our own chalk? It'll be a lot cheaper.


Rant over.

I would recommend obtaining clarification those people who have been elected to represent the interests of the membership.

Since the decision was likely made at the executive committee;

from the link;
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-executive-committee

the national council representatives on the executive committee, voted in by the national council members to oversee the work of the executive;

Colin Knowles
Deirdre Collier

The presidents, nominated by the national council and voted in by the BMC membership at AGM.

Rehan Siddiqui
John Simpson
Rupert Davies
Nicholas Kurth
Emma Flaherty

I would have expect the executive committee to have consulted with the national council about the name change. It would then be a decision for national council about whether the members should be consulted via the area meetings.
I have no idea if the executive committee consulted with the national council, it might be worth checking the minutes of the national council minutes.

If the above faces are not forthcoming, it might be worth asking your elected local area national council representative.

Here they are;
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-national-council

Pete Sterling & Ted Rogers (Lakes)
Lisa Payne & Rik Payne (London & South East)
Phil Simister & Roger Fanner (Midlands)
Mark Anstiss & Alan Hinkes (North East)
Nick Bond & Tim Greehalgh (North West)
David Brown & Rob Greenwood (Peak)
Colin Knowles & Gareth Palmer (South West)
Deirdre Collier & James Rowe (Yorkshire)
Jim Kelly & Anthony Eccles (North Cymru/Wales)
Will Kilner (South Cymru/Wales)


The BMC office should be able to put you in touch with the above people and confirm that those lists are still current. These people stood for election, hopefully that the interests of members would be represented in the operations of the BMC. Therefore they should be only too willing to keep you informed and listen to your concerns.

The decision to change the name, with the obvious refocusing of the BMC away from the democracy that dropping the term, 'council' implies is not a fait accompli.

If enough people make their feelings known to their elected rep, the initiative will disappear like many an initative has in the past.

In reply to broken spectre:


It could be if you've been living in a cave for the last decade or two, otherwise you might have noticed that the principal function of the tirelessly self promoting BMC seems to have become to organise endless symposia to tick every politically correct box on the government "can we have some more cash please" forms which they then spend promoting competitions about which the majority of climbers are either totally ambivalent or outrightly hostile.

Its about time we had two organisations, one governing body for competitions which could incorporate walls, training and other indoor activities and then a genuinely representative body (which was what the BMC was originally supposed to be) for everything outside. There's no reason why people couldn't be affiliated to both should they wish.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Rubbish name change. I hope they didn't pay anyone to come up with that pile of pish!

In reply to muppetfilter:


They must be bloody uncomfortable shoes then. Does Jimmy Choo make plastic boots now?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Is it true that the BBC are going to rename themselves: 'Telly Britain'?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Will the disgruntled membership leave? Climb Brexit?

In reply to Sean Kelly:


Bit like the Climbers Union of Northern Tasmania, you mean?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

This on the BMC website in response from some of the questions...

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

In reply to Bellie:

Will BMC members now be known as CBeebies?

In reply to Bellie:

Can I ask that the press officer who came up with the phrase 'broad cathedral' receives a special beating, please?

A cathedral is only a building; a church is much more, and so much broader.

T.

In reply to Bellie:
According to those Facts, the Olympic bid has nothing at all to do with this farce, leaving only two reasons to change the name: the old name was old and acronyms are out of fashion.

It doesn't add up. Clubs and organisations with decades of history do not simply burn their legacies (and a great deal of good-will and cash) because their name is old and often abbreviated. That's blatant stupidity and surely at least SOME of those 19 voters on the national council would have called it.

I call shenanigans.

EDIT: Yes, yes. "All of the consultancy work leading up to the Climb Britain announcement has been funded by Sport England." whatever. That's just the tip of the ice-berg. What about the t-shirts, hoodies and coffee cups, banners and stationary, paperwork, contracts, ...

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

Its known as a bad case of the bull sh!ts contagious. He might have caught it from the initial press release

In reply to mark_wellin:


Not really. All they have done is change the name. Admittedly it is a few years now, but the last time I was in the office, you will be amazed to hear that no one had a knarly beard, or wore red knee length socks, or smoked a pipe, or had their ventile jacket hanging on a peg, or their hemp rope stowed in the corner.

Times change and with it the images one wants to present to the outside world. The new name is more about those who look in than us looking out. You know that types - the sort of people who say things like "You climb bare handed!?" in a slightly ironic tone.

In reply to Xharlie:

I wonder why the pressing need to attract under 25s to the BMC. SO what if we members are older. I'm sure there are many reasons young people feel no need to join a representative organisation, and its got nothing to do with 'hey thats an old farts club'. What if the oldies like the name Council... are we to be cast aside in favour of the clammer to get the youth in the door? oooh Climb Britain, that sounds rad.

In reply to ByEek:

Not really. All they have done is change the name. Admittedly it is a few years now, but the last time I was in the office, you will be amazed to hear that no one had a knarly beard, or wore red knee length socks, or smoked a pipe, or had their ventile jacket hanging on a peg, or their hemp rope stowed in the corner.

Well, it's been a few years since Graeme Alderson worked there I suppose...

In reply to ByEek:

Knarly beards and tweedy clobber. Isn't that just the sort of thing young hipster types sport these days?

In reply to Bellie:

I'm pretty sure that most of what we're now reading is probably written by b-focused and ThinkFarm. They're professionals at this sort of caper and smoothing feathers during the transition period and running a social media campaign to minimise lost good-will is part of their modus operandi.

On the note of under 25's: I'm surprised that such a high number (over 1/8th) of the membership are so young, actually. 1/8th really doesn't sound so terrible since the exBMC was an organisation one might quite literally join for life, and one that you really don't need to join at all in order to take part in the sports it represents.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Just a name change. But a change to a lesser name. Waste of time and money. Can't be bothered to read why they say their doing it. I guess they have plenty of time to waste thinking about changing names?

In reply to ByEek:

As I said, it's not just a name change, it's the reasoning behind the change and the refocusing to things that mean very little to a great majority of their membership.
Also, as I said, it's no bad thing to look ahead and get ready for the new things coming (olympics) but it's at odds with what they have historically done.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Like just about everyone else I half hoped this was a very late April Fool.

God knows why they can't just create a separate brand for competitions and getting youngsters into climbing like the MCofS have done with 'ClimbScotland'. This name is surely a copy of that but somehow they've got over-excited and decided to re-name the whole organisation that!


"Hill walking, climbing and mountaineering have evolved since the BMC was first established in 1944, and the name ‘Mountaineering Council’ doesn’t quite cut it these days" says Dave Turnbull.

Is there any further explanation regarding the above quote? I honestly don't see what's wrong with 'Mountaineering Council'.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Probably to differentiate different business activities of the BMC which still exists, from Climb Britain, the out door moving up and down info and access organisation

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

You have to do hill walking to do mountaineering but you don't have to do hill walking to do mountin eering so BMC is more representitive a name

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I quite like the new name, and clearly it is more representative than the old one.

But I really hate the weird font on "climb". It will annoy me every single time I see it. It adds nothing to the logo and just makes it awkward to read.

Maybe a intellectual property suit from Norsk Fjellsportforum would put an end to the logo

http://www.fjellsportforum.no

In reply to Michael Gordon:

They haven't renamed the whole organisation. Crags are still owned by the BMC

In reply to ByEek:


"One"? Who are you talking about. Who gives a shit what the outside world thinks of climbing?

In a related announcement the English Collective of Prostitutes have been advised by Thinkfarm to change their name to F**k Britain because what they have in common is that they all f**k stuff.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I am literally weeping with laughter. I might be sick.

In reply to Xharlie:


Talking of the modern dislike of acronyms, I'm now expecting that any minute the BBC will be renamed 'Broadcast Britain'.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


More likely "Television Britain" to make radio listeners feel excluded.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Never "Television" - that's far too long a word. It would have to be "Telly Britain".

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I like it.

The BMC has widened it's reach and appeal over the past years, which I welcome and membership has increased.

I consider myself a mountaineer (only because I can't climb anything harder than 5a!), but I hardly ever hear people saying that they are going mountaineering. Its all about climbing.

As the strap line to logo indicates: climb hills/rocks/indoors/ice/mountains.

I'm confident that most members will learn to live with this re-branding and over time will appreciate the benefits of the change.

If it doesn't work then we can hold the Trustees & Exec team to account, but I doubt that will be necessary.

Happy climbing hills/rocks/indoors/ice/mountains

Ian

In reply to Robert Durran:

... that would appeal more to Wally Britain ...

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Following on from today's news, new names will be used for all climbs in future guidebooks, in accordance with the examples below:

Corner Cenotaph

Unconquerable Left

Slab Great

you get the idea

In reply to Bellie:
If they received funding from Sport England, and the brand consultants also worked for organisations that branded the GB Olympic team, then it seems fair to ask the BMC / Climb Britain / Consignia / BoltClipTeamGB whether a condition of the funding was to use the same brand consultants, and ask to see a copy of the original brief prepared for them.

This seems like the first move in another ill advised attempt to get climbing into the Olympics.

Lastly, if you have to expain on day 1 of a rebrand that, after the rebranding, you're not excluding hillwalkers or a focus on access etc, then it's self evidently a failure.

In reply to Neil Williams:


The BMC has always been recognised as the National Governing Body (of Mountaineering) by Sport England.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Pathetic,total waste of time and money!

In reply to UKC/UKH News: Thoughts about the new branding-(rather than the name it's self) I don't much like it- the font bothers me in particular . I don't see why they couldn't have carried over elements of the old branding, such as the logo before 'BMC', the font (or a very similar style of font) and the overal colour. This would at least carry over some of the identity and therefore recognition. A crude way of putting it would be 'Someone's nicked the BMC's branding! Oh actually the BMC have changed their name but kept the branding'.
About the name- as a relatively new climber I initially didn't see the relevance of the BMC to me mainly because of the mountaineering bit in the name- particular as I mainly boulder. However I've had it explained to me some of the things they've done that have benefited all kinds of users of crags and got over that.
Someone suggested that it could be a 'branch' of the BMC but I can see the logic of why they are trying to keep everything under one umbrella, after all what would be next 'walk BRITAIN' or 'boulder BRITAIN' ?? That would foster division, nobody wants that.
However I'm not sure I'll be able to persuade my mates who are keen walkers but aren't climbers they 'climb' under the new logic!

In reply to Neil Williams:

The MTA will just have to become 'Teachclimb Soc', or better, 'Teach Climb'

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

'Thinkfarm' - Mushrooms?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

NewSpeak from IngSoc?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

How much did this cost? I would like to know a number to put this in perspective.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

UKC will now have to follow suit, surely? and rebrand itself as 'Kingdom Climb' or 'Climb Kingdom', or better, 'Up Kingdom'. Where will this all end?

In reply to Aigen:

Nothing to the BMC... unless you factor in being the plaything of Sport England now. Sport England pay the branding people to come up with this, for BMC. UK Gov/Nat Lottery fund Sport England.

Ongoing costs now for BMC are the actual physical costs of the rebrand.

I think thats how its panning out.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:
To quote the Bugle "What the f*ck just happened over there? What the f*ck did you just do?".

I really had to check the date on the post to make sure it wasn't April 1st.

More shock news "The British Army" rebranded to "Fight Britain".

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Reckon someone should start a petition...

In reply to Bobling:

National Trust is going to rebrand to "Gardens Britain"

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Bye bye BMC , you are no longer our representative democratic body.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:
I am rebranding myself to 'climb man'.

In reply to myrddinmuse:

Nah, freedom of information request for the costs, though you'll never get the truth as it would be hidden in other budgets. I wonder what the funding breakdown is? How much sport England and how much from members subscriptions.

Re: Comment on BMC website about 10% being under 25, maybe there is another reason apart from name that is not encouraging them to join? (Like what's the point? AAC is cheaper and more reliable.)

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Jaysus, last time I posted that Summit seemed to have degenerated into Trail magazine someone from BMC was on here five seconds later to defend themselves. This happens and we get radio silence? Are they seriously sitting in the pub with a nice pint saying "Well I think that's gone rather well hasn't it?".

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I would not call the BMC an "organisation". I would call the BMC an "institution" in the grandest use of the phrase. Similar to other world renown institutions like the Royal Society, the American Alpine Club or the International Olympic Committee itself. Institutions stand as pinnacles in times of change and challenge. Institutions do not simply change and morph because of the vagaries of public opinion, outcry and popularity. Institutions remember their purpose, and stand by that purpose, and remember that the towers of the future are built on the foundations of the past. Institutions remind us of the need for care in times of turbidity, and tweak and jiggle, rather than crash and smash. When institutions come to change, they do so with vehemence and slow, monolithic purpose after long discussion (not dissimilar to an Ent moot). This is how I regarded the BMC. Now, it seems, the BMC is content to become an "organisation", trying to find the highest of the white horses rather than be content to sit atop the wave. How long before the IOC become "Run World"?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:
Change for the sake of change, needlessly spending money along the way. 9 month consultancy project, what a joke! They could have paid for another footpath to be repaired or funded a few professional crag clean ups but I guess that kind of stuff isn't cool and doesn't polish someone's ego.

The logo is crap - the mountain bit is unimaginative while the font jars on the eye, plus they've unashamedly used British national colours as if the mountains can be appropriated by a particular nation.

Climb is arguably narrower than mountaineering - do hill walkers climb? I suppose you can say 'I've climbed a hill or a Munro' but does anyone say 'I'm going climbing' when they mean walking in the hills and mountains? Mountaineering in its broadest sense is something everyone who loves the outdoors can relate to, it's the love of being out in the hills and mountains, on the coast, in a forest, anywhere where we get to walk, scramble or climb in a nice place outdoors. Climbing is obviously what we do as climbers but somehow it comes across as less all-encompassing, focusing on the physical movement but not the surroundings. Something which seems more appropriate for indoor competitions, which is what the BMC seems to be gravitating towards! I think it's hard to get away from 'climb' being strongly associated with rock climbing, which rather flies in the face of trying to attract more hill walkers, who are after all a much larger demographic but who share similar concerns and interests as climbers. Perhaps we should ask the hill walkers though, I'd be interested in hearing their views.

Climb Britain sounds like a climbing guidebook, wall or shop, not a representative body. It comes across as something from a tourist brochure - "Hey you, come and climb Britain!" "Yeah, that was good, I've done it and got the t-shirt and even had enough change for an ice cream, gonna put it on Facebook now that I've climbed Britain!" It's a sterile name, just like Sport England, which is probably where the 'inspiration' (and perhaps instigation) came from.

By dropping 'council' they are also moving away from the fact that it is a membership based association which is meant to be (but increasingly isn't) controlled by its members. Again, a sad reflection of the way things are going. No wonder people are feeling increasingly disillusioned with and disconnected from the BMC / CB. What does it ever do for me? Waste money and time on pointless marketing clap trap, it seems...

In reply to C Witter:
You've nailed it there.

In reply to jon:


Nah, you ask a question that doesn't need answering and get the wrong answer!

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Embarrassing- if the BMC no longer wishes to represent mountaineers will withdraw my subs & join Mountaineering Scotland instead!

Everything about this is naff, ill considered and the logo reminds one of the national front-

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Bouldering Mountaineering Climbing, what was wrong with the BMC?
Also, the new one missed climb trees.

In reply to john mc c:



I think some slow acid I dropped in 1997 just hit.

For the clicks baby.


WTAF?


D

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Please sign the petition to stop the BMC changing it's name to Climb Britian.

https://www.change.org/p/british-mountaineering-council-stop-the-bmc-from-c...

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

bleh. wank.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I just cancelled my individual upgrade membership (from club membership) and told them exactly why.

In reply to MooseMouse:

Thanks. I know the Midlands area reps and will ask them. I have checked the agenda for the Midlands area meeting which was in early June (before the national council meeting) and this wasn't on the agenda. I didn't go to the meeting - would have done if it had been!

In reply to muppetfilter:



B-focused, as in B-movie? or they just couldn't be arsed to write BE focused?

In reply to Dauphin:
That's unreal. It's like a Grimer joke, except it isn't....

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I don't really like the name, or the logo.

BUT...

Several people have argued that they (representing the membership) don't want the sport element of climbing, think we should tell Sport England to bugger off and not take their money,

Many (most?) of the people here are probably completely disconnected from the competition scene - which is totally fine. But there are people for whom part or everything about climbing is sport and competition. This is no less valid, and it is the role of the BMC to represent them too. Probably most climbers enjoy the non-competitive elements of climbing - either just going for a nice day out or trying hard to do the problem/route, indoors or outdoors. Others want to be the best, and love competing - it's what gets them climbing and training. Sport is not for everyone, but give it fair respect for those who enjoy it.

If I was in charge of the BMC, I would know the youth and adult squad, and how hard they train to compete on the world level. I would know the coaches and parents who help these kids succeed, and give them a fair shot to compete on the international stage. You may never understand their desire, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth supporting. That Sport England money might give those kids and athletes a bit more of a fair playing field with other nations, while potentially costing BMC members nothing or a minimal amount. Would you withhold that money from them just to avoid a rebranding (not even a name change in law, as I understand it)?

So yes, maybe it is a stupid logo, but maybe it isn't the end of the world. And more importantly, the rise of the new doesn't mean the death of the old.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I've replied to the email i received from Dave Turnbull. it'd be great if he'd respond. I'm sure other share some of my concerns so maybe he can reply here.

hi dave 


This seems like a top down externally driven change and am not too happy.


Just out of interest was the cost met by sport England? Why didn't you crowd source the new brand from the members many of which are pretty handy graphic artists.


I'll be supporting any available motion at the AGM to block this rebranding and if large amounts of bmc cash from subscriptions has been spent I'll be expecting apologies and resignations from the executive team.


best wishes 

Alasdair Buchanan 

In reply to Robert Durran:


We should. After all, it is some outside climbing who feel we are reckless, putting our lives at risk and those of our rescuers. It is some outside climbing who for irrational reasons don't like it and it is generally those outside climbing who own the crags we enjoy climbing on and are quite happy to ban us.

I have learned a couple of rather sad lessons in my 20 or so years of climbing. It is that climbers like a good moan, especially around petty issues concerning the BMC / Climb Britain and that some climbers are just down right selfish.

In reply to andrewmcleod:


I agree with a lot of this, I understand the desire to connect with younger, overwhelmingly indoor, climbers and I can imagine the pressure being exerted by Sport England to share their vacuous shallow branding. However, I don't understand why Climb Britain couldn't be the branding around the competition function of the BMC. That seems to me appropriate and should surely be enough for funding purposes. What I don't understand or agree with is the rebranding of the whole organisation, which is much broader than this, and the apparent change in policy and governance this implies.


You're right, it didn't need to be if it had been targeted at one particular part of the BMC's responsibilities but it will be if it's handled like this.

In reply to ByEek:
>especially around petty issues concerning the BMC / Climb Britain and that some climbers are just down right selfish.

>

I wouldn't call this rebranding "petty". It goes right to the core of our activities, and from the tone of the responses it's not only the name change that's unpopular but justifiable anger that our representative body has done this without consulting it's own membership.

In reply to ByEek:

I asked who gave a shit what they think about climbing, not climbers. Not quite the same thing.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:
Signed! https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-to-change-its-name-to-climb-britain#comment

Here's another I came up with overnight "University of Oxford" rebranded to...."Think Oxford". Bugg*r the history and the tradition, this one works much better on social media, less characters innit?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Huhcorp strikes again?

http://www.huhcorp.com/

In reply to Bobling:
What they're doing is leaving voicemails for b-focussed Jimmy Choo Mount Everest Lady asking what the f**k they're supposed to do now - whether to deploy contingency plan A) "we're rumbled" or double down with contingency plan B) "Patronise the UKC Dinosaurs"

In reply to SeeWhat:

IMO they knew this was going to cause a problem, and that's why they didn't ask the membership.

The reply they've given about the name change and how it was done through the Executive Committee as it is allowed was possibly factually correct, but smacks of manipulative games to avoid being accountable to the membership as we have some views they don't want to accommodate. For what reasons? Financial and their own job protection I suspect.

I'm willing to bet they're thinking and hoping this will die down to a few grumbles and they'll get away with it in the long term.

In reply to Robert Durran:


A narrow view to take when the majority of the most important access and campaigning work the BMC/Climb Britain does relies on what the non-climbing, outside world, thinks.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I take it everyone knows what branding agencies do when they get a brief like this? All go out on the lash, cobble something together then all take bets on how much they can get away with charging.
Here's an idea for free, let's rename the United Kingdom "The Kingdom" since we're not so united at the moment.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Down with this sort of thing.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I'm a self confessed font pedant I know but........

that's one of the ugliest fonts I've ever seen. What have they done to the C and the B? Bashed it with a brick?

I understand the re-brand (though I hate the steady creep away from trad and into plastic filled hangars and Olympic dreams) but they could at least make it pretty.

In reply to JR:


See my reply above. Might expand on it later.

In reply to bouldery bits:

Royal Meteorological Society are rebranding themselves to Clouds Britain.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:
to drive a wedge into the membership argument (Google the BMC membership survey for the numbers) 1/8 of the membership being under 25 is surprisingly high. most organisations struggle to get under 25's to join anything. I suspect that if anything changing the name from Mountaineering (adventurous) to Climb (thinking indoor athletic pursuits) will put youngsters off. Can only conclude that the driving motivation is something else. No coincidence that the agency was involved in Olympic branding...? If that's where the BMC goes (indoor, sport) then I can see a market for a new organisation to represent Mountaineering in Britain.

In reply to ByEek:

>

So how does a name change alter this?

In reply to Bootrock:

and why shouldn't they? They have found they aren't getting down enough with the youth, and need to appeal more to that sector. In readiness, to weather chasing becoming an olympic sport we need GB to be at the forefront, so the Society's thrust should be in engaging young weather bods into being meteorological medalists.

Fck-et the gravitas and the history of the name. Its just not cutting it these days is it. Oh and here's a shIt font for you to use while you are at it!

In reply to Bellie:

Oh dear - I've just seen the logo - what a crock of shit. The politest thing I can think to say about it is is that it looks like it was cut out by a sleep 4 year old wielding a pair of blunt safety scissors. What the hell did this folly cost?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Some public spirited individual has set up a petition for the masses to voice their disapproval. No idea if the name change is now set in stone, but more signatures is surely better than fewer.

https://www.change.org/p/british-mountaineering-council-stop-the-bmc-from-c...

In reply to captain paranoia:


Hahahaha nice one, I didn't even notice it!

In reply to Robert Durran:


I saw it. Not quite the same thing, but certainly not exclusive of each other.

In reply to Annabel Tall:

Hmm. I'v been away for nine months thinking about this, and I'v got some findings to report back . Is there a new name that could clearly convey all our core beliefs?

British people are all..British! British is the one word that bids all British people together. And the word Britain sounds a bit like Team Britain, which reminds me of the Olympics.

"British Britain!" The new name for the new rebranded Britain! Can we have a new shit font for it too please?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

My goodness I thought this was a joke at first .
I checked the calendar thinking I had teleported back to April the first.
What a truly sh!t font and logo.

Dreadful

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I can't see why climbers are taking such an interest in the BMC renaming themselves.
Ok, Heal Britain might have been a more appropriate name for a doctor's union but I know a few doctors that are into climbing.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

They could simply change Council to '& Climbing' to form 'British Mountaineering & Climbing', I.e. keep BMC.

In reply to JLS:

Royal Society of Chemistry is getting rebranded to Bang! Britain.

It's snappy. It's hip. It's young. It's trendy. It's down with the kids.

In reply to Doug Blane:

What did you charge for that idea?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I think that is a good thing. Yes, I have read the posts on this thread and a couple of others.

Why you might ask. Because most of us (most climbers) don't participate in mountaineering, yes some of us have climbed peaks in the greater ranges etc. but the average punter at Stanage is not using their Sunday afternoon bimble in preparation for a 7000m peak in Pakistan.

More to the point, to the general public mountaineering is an obscure activity. When you discuss with work colleagues what you do as a pass time... how would they describe it? "oh, Bob, yeah he likes going climbing. Seems to keep him fit and he does it in all weathers..."

Get over it. Yes, it is a change in name. It could be a good thing...
Cheers
LD

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I'm not necessarily against change, but 9 months to come up with 'Climb Britain' and that logo? Seriously?! I can't even begin to imagine the money that was likely spent on this.

Thankfully I cancelled my subs to the BMC several years ago as didn't feel I was getting much in return in for my cash, other than a pile of glossy adverts landing on my doormat every 3 months.

In reply to Bootrock:
I imagine some the BMC Exec are watching this thread with a mix of sneering, embarrasment, and worry that they've misjudged this badly.

Any of them got the courage to come on here and answer questions, or have they taken a policy of no comment hoping it'll all blow over?

If anyone from the company has a look at this... you should be ashamed, you're a bunch of neo-liberal, bullshit spouting money grabbers. You belong in an episode of The Office, not real life. Reminds me of that Bill Hicks sketch... "Anyone here work in advertising? (A few hands go up.) Kill yourself. (Audience titters.) No really, kill yourself. (Awkward silence.)."

And the logo design is shit. It's ugly, cliched, gives a feeling of petty nationalism, and will look dated in a very short time.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

UKC to be renamed "Troll Britain".

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

This is a response from the Midlands Area Facebook page. For context, the Midlands Area meeting was about 10 days before the national council meeting. By that stage the new name and logo or at least a shortlist would surely have been known and, as noted above, the new website had already been registered.

"It was mentioned in a short briefing of what was going on at head office. At the time the new name was not known."

This makes a mockery of the democratic process. The reps weren't told the full story and didn't think to ask. So the area meeting was unable to instruct the reps how to vote. In fact this wasn't even on the Area meeting agenda as a separate item.

In reply to Bellie:
The problem with the whole "not getting enough youths in" isn't the name of a company, but the attitude of the kids. They don't care, the don't want to, or they are too lazy these days to get out and find something. And the ones that do care, are already members.

You aren't suddenly going to get kids throwing themselves at climb Britain. OH MY GOD ITS SUCH A HIP NAME THEY MUST BE SICK BRAH.

Instead of wasting money, time and effort on rebranding, they could put that money time and effort into doing more youth aimed events. If that's what they want. Did they even consult the younger members? Any younger ones care to weigh in?

It's insulting, dumbing down, pointless and a waste of time money and effort. Come on, b-focused and thinkfarm? What a joke. And they designed the awful Olympics 2012 design that was shit and looked like a kneeling Lisa Simpson performing a sex act. People got paid a lot of money to come up with this dogs abortion.


And let's face it, it's got bugger all to do with introducing new young people, it's all about brown envelopes and politics and bureaucracy and people making names for themselves.

At least Mountaineering Scotland is marginally better than Climb Britain. and to not even inform or ask the members is a tad insulting.

I have been toying with the idea of joining, but I won't bother now.

And why do they have a discount for being unemployed? What's that all about?
K

In reply to UKC/UKH News:
I am dissapointed that if the BMC want to mention ukc discussion in their pr, then they really should have engaged in the discussion- there are a number of valid points that have been raised here, on Facebook and on their own website, but no engagement with the rank and file. That's really quite shocking, and suggests they know it's not been managed professionally or (and I don't think it's too strong a term) ethically

In reply to planetmarshall:

They missed a trick, it should be

CLIMB! Britain.

Punchy. Trendy. Attention grabbing.


B-fooled and thinkfart can have that for free.

In reply to Misha:
Dave Turnbull turned up at the Peak Area (8-6-2026) Meeting to tell us about the change too but would not divulge the actual name for various reasons.

In reply to Misha:
National council representatives must have been asleep on the job.

The executive should have informed the national council before the process even started.
This is the job of the national council reps on the executive committee. Clearly they have let the membership down badly.

The national council should have questioned if the membership wanted a name change and stopped the initiative in its tracks.

The sports council may have paid the consultant fees, but many hours of BMC officer time would have been wasted in meetings, 'focus groups' and other frippery. This is time that could have been spend directly serving the clear priority of the membership, namely access.

In reply to olliebristol:



And don't forget "climb up your own arse".

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I'm a designer of 25 years so I don't like to dismiss re brands. I've seen plenty that have been given the thumbs down on launch go on to become loved in the long run. Not so long back The Ramblers rebrand got panned. I used the 'extensive' branding on some walkers literature and it worked really well.

However in the current climate - I can't help thinking that they might have been persuaded to go along with the Verb-Noun thinking and become Walk Britain.

Thats my beef really, Logos change and evolve - so the visual branding is not my issue. Changing your name is quite a different proposition, and given the history of the organisation, to change to a snappy throw away moniker - just jars with me. It just smacks of trying to be trendy at the behest of the marketing people - who seem to have thrown the lot in the bin.

I accept that the legal name for the organisation stays the same. I wonder - if the funding goes, will they think sod that and change back - or are they really onboard with it all. I can't help thinking there were better design and marketing solutions at their disposal to help them reach out to the masses than a rename.

In reply to Bootrock:


Speaking as a student, and a member, I object to this characterization of my generation, but agree that a name change will do precisely jack shit to encourage people to join.

If you climb indoors only, and don't engage in competition, in my opinion there is much less that the BMC can do for you than if you're interested in the outdoors, and would benefit from access work/trad/mountaineering help etc. I think that the best way to get my generation involved is to emphasize the world "outside" and the benefits that joining the BMC can bring in that area.

As a welshman I don't think I will ever buy a t-shirt with the 'butcher's apron' flag on it either I wonder what the wider implications of the "climb Cymru" split will be, as well.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I prefer BMC. I wonder, does this name change have anything to do with the bid to include climbing in the Olympics?

Al

In reply to myrddinmuse:



But you just proved it, you care, and you're a member.
It maybe a generalisation but generalisations are there for a reason.

If there's a big push for indoor/Olympic climbing, why not make a seperare club/union governing body that focuses solely on that?

In reply to Bootrock:

I don't think it's an old young divide though.. I know plenty of older climbers who don't join either because they're purely plastic enthusiasts. My point is that more should be done to join the 'two worlds' if you want more members. It's a step in the wrong direction.

It would be interesting to have a separate club, I guess.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Sounds a bit UKIP to me.

In reply to myrddinmuse:
Well said. Though having passed 25, I can probably no longer count myself as "young". As I said in my previous comment, I actually think the BMC do a very good job at engaging with younger people. I imagine youth membership may look lower than it actually is because a lot of young people are members of affiliated clubs (like University clubs) and therefore don't need to join the BMC independently to have access to its benefits. I know I joined as an individual only after leaving university.

I'll also add that an ageing population may well skew the statistics to make it look like younger people are proportionally less likely to be members. Let's also add to that the fact that young people are less inclined to join formal organisations than their elders and it may well be that youth engagement in the BMC is actually pretty darn good. I could be wrong though, but we need more statistics than "1/8 of our membership are 18-25" to draw a fair conclusion either way.

My personal opinion is that the BMC have worked hard to address the fact that they need to appeal to young people and have done a lot to ensure that they are perceived extremely well by young people. The effort that they've put into making that the case will actually be damaged by a name change because you have to re-educate your audience and earn back the standing you established under a different name. It still might be worth the change overall if this does lead to an uptick in interest, but I'd really like to see some demonstration that the BMC have taken a balanced view on this rather than the "party line" that they're trotting out. That for me is what makes the difference between a representative body that engages with its community and a bog-standard company/organisation.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

At my desk now and putting some thoughts together, will report back in a while.

Dave

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Thanks, Dave.

In reply to Ian Carey:

Agree, but the armchair warriors on here won't ever turn up to a meeting so not much risk of them voicing their opinions beyond the internet. If they had gone to the meetings then they would have been aware that a name change was being proposed. Those that did turn up to their local meetings like I did were aware. Its a name change folks, not the end of the world! I am not a mountaineer, but I am a climber, I guess all the shouty folks are mountaineers?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Admit to being very surprised and confused by the rebrand when I first heard about it. Have slept on it before commenting, but in the cold light of day I'm still struggling with it.

First up- I'm a member of MCofS and grateful that the name change north of the border is a lot less drastic, and made with consultation of the membership. I even vaguely recall being asked. I also think that the BMC could have taken a leaf out of the MCofS' book: Climb Scotland was launched last year as a seperate entity to attract young people to climbing as a sport. At the time this seemed like a really positive move by MCofS and still does. A comp/youth wing called Climb England/Climb Cymru would make much more sense.

Personally I really don't like the new name- Climb Britain is so faceless. It's amazing how a trusted institution that always felt to me like an old friend can suddenly seem so alien, so corporate, simply with a new logo and a new name. Hopefully over the coming months we will see that it hasn't changed- but if it hasn't, why the rebrand? If there must be a rebrand because the word Council is so dated- there have been some great suggestions on here and the membership could/should have been consulted. British Mountaineering Club, and British Mountaineering and Climbing (both keeping BMC), could have been popular choices.

You could argue its none of my business as I've not been a BMC member since I moved north of the border but the BMC was set up to represent all hill-goers, members or no, and represent us for issues such as access etc. I still head south from time to time and enjoy hard won access rights when I do.

The BMC should definitely be attracting new participants to climbing and hillwalking. I find it odd that older members feel alienated by this. In a world where obesity is the leading cause of ill health and young people are increasingly disconnected from their environment the BMC has a positive role to play for the good of wider society as well as existing members.

But, that font? Really? Unfortunately with that font attached it's hard to take anything else that has come out of the 9 month marketing study seriously.

Finally, I feel sad that this off key rebranding decision is being used to bash the BMC unfairly. Yes its become a large and ultimately glossy organisation, and yes it does spend quite a bit of time promoting itself, but please, get with the 21st century, this is what large membership organisations with a campaigning remit have to do to get funding to do all the great things that they do- fight for access rights, support grass roots participation, improve safety, and yes, even promote equity (can't believe someone dissed this above). A few years ago I attended a Disability Symposium which was a total game changer for me in my work as a freelance ML. I received training not available anywhere else because I freelance which has given me the confidence to work with people with disabilities. I'm extremely grateful to the BMC for giving me this opportunity.

Finally finally finally... rebranding U turns happen, and the BMC would do well to look at this as an option right now. It would be a great way to show their members that they do listen after all....

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

The first thing I did was check the date.
Second I re-read.
Then I realised that Sport Climbing into the Olympics had arrived.
We no longer control what I thought was OUR organisation, but control has effectively been passed, by those in charge of our finances, into the hands of a government quango.
Stand by for individual affiliation fees to be increased, without our agreement, so that the small number of indoor competition climbers, and their large number of hangers-on, can become full time professionals.
Meanwhile the (former) BMC is evidently no longer interested in anything to do with Mountaineering.
After all, if the MCofS can be "Mountaineering Scotland" then why not the BMC "Mountaineering Britain".

In reply to Dave Garnett:


I think Dave, that they've just realised that BMC is the British Motor corporation and that they'd rather steer clear of any confusion in the future.

In reply to myrddinmuse:


Hang on, has any member had any interaction with BMC about this?

They keep banging on about focus groups, surely, the BMC members are the focus group?

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Well I hope you have a good long hard think about the history and cachet behind the name British Mountaineering Council and what that means here and overseas, and also about democratic process to the membership. I joined the BMC because it represented the sober, concerned, and sensible face of my sport, and had the air of authority and gravitas that befitted its age and origin, whilst being concerned with the issues of the moment, in particular access and safety. The message you have sent with this ill-thought out move is that you do not care about the members, you do not care about your heritage, you do not care about being seen as a senior and august body that can deal with landowners and government, and you do not care about how many members you will lose as a result of the cavalier attitude here displayed.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I have cancelled my Direct Debit

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

A petition against the name change can be found here -

https://www.change.org/p/british-mountaineering-council-stop-the-bmc-from-c...

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Just to point out in response to some of the replies in this thread: I'm part of the mythical 'under 25 and frequently climb indoors' demographic (although that's more to do with the weather in this country than anything else), and the whole thing strikes me as wank too, as I'm sure it does anyone else who isn't completely f*cking tasteless. Older BMC members might be decrying this rebranding as a transparent attempt to attract younger members, and it most likely is, but that doesn't mean that people born this side of 1991 will actually be taken in by this kind of shit. If anything, we're a good bit more cynical and jaded when it comes to focus-grouped crap aimed at youth markets (seeing as we're actually the targets of it) than the hex-wielding bumblies.

In reply to philhilo:

The last SW area meeting was in Cornwall, 200 miles from my house. It's rather far to go for something that is normally routine business, and when I checked the agenda, no mention was made of any name change or anything else unusual.

Edit: But for the record, I strongly disapprove of the name change. For promoting climbing in the Olympics or indoor climbing, fine, but it makes an organisation with a long and venerable history of supporting access and other important issues sound like a joke. It completely lacks the gravitas that the British Mountaineering Council had. Heads should roll.

In reply to Jonathan Spooner:

Can you maybe post that as a new thread to give it the visibility it deserves?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:
These days it seems like pretty much every government agency or organisation dependent on government is doing the 'X UK' thing. So as an organisation that gets 30% of its budget from Sport England BMC is just swimming with the tide. Can't see any reason to hire two agencies for 9 months to suggest something so blatantly obvious though.

I think MCofS had a better idea with Mountaineering Scotland as the parent organisation and Climb Scotland as a sub-organisation focused on youth and comps. This seems like a better solution organisationally and visually than calling the whole thing Climb Scotland. Organisationally, there's enough separation between mainly older hillwalkers and trad climbers and mainly younger indoor climbers so they can do their own thing without interference and without splitting the organisation entirely. Visually, the indoor climbers can get a bright, sporty, logo that appeals to government funders and young people and looks fine next to content about indoor climbing and the mountaineering guys can get a more muted and traditional branding that looks good next to pictures of landscape.

In reply to JayPee630:

Come join mcofs, can you imagine booking an alpine hit and when they ask you if you are a member of any professional body or club, you say YES, I'm a member of climb Britain. I wonder what they would think💩💩💩💩

In reply to UKC/UKH

I would much prefer British Mountaineers & Climbers (BMC).

In reply to climbwhenready:

The BMC can legitimately just ignore that petition, and rightly so. There is no way to be sure that the respondents are BMC members.

The BMC cannot ignore members if the strength of feeling is expressed viathe elected national council representatives, or through a vote at a General Meeting.

I posted about it here;

http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?n=646470

If you want to stop the name change, the effective way to do that is through your national council representative, or a vote at a General Meeting.

In reply to Steve Woollard:




signed

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Like others, I too had to check the date. We are informed, without canvassing, that the name is to keep up with the times. More likely to make the BMC more marketable, and fund attractive in readiness for the 2020 Olympics?

'Climb Britain' sounds like another TV reality game show, with an instantly forgettable name.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
I'm sorry to be negative, but isn't it a bit late to be doing that now? The time to present your thoughts was before this farcical turn of events rather than post hoc justification

In reply to Davie.G:

MCoS?

You mean Mountaineer Scotland. Marginally better than the shite Climb Britain.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

UPDATE:

I am told that the huge steel dome that was secretly constructed over Ken Wilson's final resting place in preparation for this announcement has begun to heat up alarmingly.

Teams of men are now working day and night pouring liquid nitrogen onto the structure while many soldiers from the encircling battalions have abandoned their tanks and fled into the hills.

In reply to philhilo:

Perhaps some of us don't have the luxury of working near home, and spend a great deal of our time many hundreds of miles away.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:


As there are no mountains in Britain surely the new name is more prescriptive of what we do here, which is climb things

In reply to subtle:

That's quite possibly the most stupid argument for the change yet.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

The BMC/CB website says
"Why weren’t members part of the decision-making process?
Major decisions are made by the Executive Committee (the Board of Directors) and the National Council, both comprised of elected volunteers. The rebranding proposal was unanimously agreed by the BMC Board of Directors on 18 May. It then went to the National Council meeting on 18 June, where it was agreed 19 for, 1 abstention (due to being a new member) and 0 against."
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/climb-britain-the-facts

This is gutless corporate-speak for '(a) It's none of their business, and (b) they would have given us the wrong answer'.

The website also says "Since we announced the start of our journey to Climb Britain, we’ve had some great responses on UKclimbing, Twitter and Facebook. Some positive, some negative – and all passionate."

This is more gutless corporate-speak for "Since we announced the end of our journey into mindless corporate re-branding, we've been slagged rotten - the feedback has been overwhelmingly negative but we will follow the rebranding guidelines and be nicey-nice while digging our heels in until our members give up".

In reply to ericinbristol:




>
Rather alarmingly, this was up on their website before this discussion got going, so at best that is remarkably disingenuous, and at worst....

In reply to ericinbristol:

Indeed, I was actually shocked at the dishonesty and corporate bullshit in that answer and statement too. They almost are more telling than the name/logo change itself.

And what happened in the month between the Board of Directors voting on it, and the National Council?

Was it purposely kept quite? It seems impossible that such a huge change wouldn't have been talked about widely without it being hushed up purposely.

In reply to CragRat11:


Copied the new Channel 4 font.

https://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2015/september/channel-4-rebrands-...

Lazy graphic design, hopping on someone else's daft trend.

I would really prefer them moving towards C.A.I. or FFCAM like and spending more time building shelters, marking paths and providing good cover for clients.

For a start they could have worked on a deal with continental mountaineers to provide discount in huts.

In reply to 3leggeddog:


Do you reckon? I email them occasionally, generally about access or their broken website, and haven't had any reply to anything since 2012.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

This is a phenomenal PR Coup d'état by the BMC. They've never been talked about like this in decades. Most people just thought they made 'check your knot' signs for indoor climbing walls. In the same way that the BBC said that they would turn off 6Music and then the listening figures went up 5 times, this is what the BMC will be wanting. Mass outcry by the masses to the new name, then the name will revert back to the BMC. The Masses thinking they've bloodied the establishments nose whilst it's actually the other way round as for the cost of briefly changing a logo the BMC's name is all over the place. Publicity like that can't be bought!

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Has everyone who's opposed to this signed the petition? It might make it a bit easier for Dave Turnbull and the team to see the strength of feeling in terms of simple numbers.

https://www.change.org/p/british-mountaineering-council-stop-the-bmc-from-c...

In reply to captain paranoia:

Has anyone seen the Facebook page? https://www.facebook.com/BritishMountaineeringCouncil/?fref=ts

Pretty much the same reaction as here.

With the addition that they've clearly nicked the SportsDirect.com colour scheme...