UKC

NEWS: BMC Rebrand 'Climb Britain' Called Off

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 UKC News 23 Sep 2016
Climb Britain logo, 3 kbThe British Mountaineering Council (BMC) have just announced on their website that the previously reported - and widely debated - decision to rebrand as 'Climb Britain' has been retracted.

Read more
8
In reply to UKC News:

They've done the right thing. Well done BMC.
2
 Steve Perry 23 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News: Well done in listening to the membership.

1
 Purple 23 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Is this a 'Climb Down'?
1
 Trangia 23 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Excellent news.

It's a shame they didn't think to pass the idea of re-branding past the membership before embarking on expensive consultancy fees........
14
 Mike Highbury 23 Sep 2016
In reply to Trangia:
> It's a shame they didn't think to pass the idea of re-branding past the membership before embarking on expensive consultancy fees........

Ooo, I dunno. Not my field but I can't say that I'm utterly opposed to such behaviour.
2
 TobyA 23 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Is this the time when all of us who never really got what all the anti-change fuss and bother was about, can now get really angry ourselves?

I MIGHT NEED TO START WRITING IN ALL CAPS!!!!!!!!
16
 SChriscoli 23 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

If only they had decided to consult BEFORE making the decision.

Would have saved face and avoided needlesly spending 50k.

Still right decison made in my view and a compromise on the climb britain use. Make it a campaign UNDER the bmc banner.

All we need now is a Walk Britain, Hillclimb Britain, Moaning Britain.

Now where is my £150k?
5
 Becky E 23 Sep 2016
In reply to Trangia:

Just to remind people: the consultancy fees did not come out of BMC funds.
1
 Trangia 23 Sep 2016
In reply to Becky E:

If that's the case I'll withdraw my comment.
 TomGB 23 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Disappointed by this as I agree that British Mountaineering Council is pretty antiquated. If everyone consulted their membership before making a decision we'd still be in the bloody stone age.
77
 Tyler 23 Sep 2016
In reply to SChriscoli:

> If only they had decided to consult BEFORE making the decision.

> Would have saved face and avoided needlesly spending 50k.

what £50K?

 Tyler 23 Sep 2016
In reply to TobyA:

> Is this the time when all of us who never really got what all the anti-change fuss and bother was about, can now get really angry ourselves?

> I MIGHT NEED TO START WRITING IN ALL CAPS!!!!!!!!

Start a petition
 GrahamD 23 Sep 2016
In reply to TomGB:

> Disappointed by this as I agree that British Mountaineering Council is pretty antiquated. If everyone consulted their membership before making a decision we'd still be in the bloody stone age.

As rock climbers, we should be in the stone age.
 Chris the Tall 23 Sep 2016
In reply to Becky E:

> Just to remind people: the consultancy fees did not come out of BMC funds.

That point has been made on every thread on this subject, but it hasn't stopped people complaining !
 MG 23 Sep 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Well somebody's (presumably tax payers) money has been wasted.
Post edited at 17:11
1
 Bill&Ben 23 Sep 2016
I saw Climb Britain as a really positive development and think it a great shame that this now won't be happening.

To connect with new walkers and climbers in the future then I don't think a three letter acronym is gonna work long term.

Fine if you're a global brand like the BBC, but not for a small representative body.

40
 Jenny C 23 Sep 2016
In reply to Becky E:

> Just to remind people: the consultancy fees did not come out of BMC funds.

No but it is still money which could potentially have been put to better uses.........
 whenry 23 Sep 2016
In reply to Bill&Ben:

I don't know about that - it's managed to attract new members for the last seventy years...
 Tyler 23 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:
I think what most are objecting to is the BMC wasting it's members money. But whether you think it's a waste or not depends on whether you think they got what they paid/asked for. SE, on behalf of the BMC, paid for some advice on branding. They got that, the BMC thought it was good advice and were pleased, it got what it paid for £20k well spent. They were forced to throw this out as a lot of people on the Internet (many of whom were BMC members) objected because they didn't like it/thought they knew better. So the advice was not acted upon (partially) but the BMC/SE paid for branding advice and they got it from both the experts and the Internet masses.
Post edited at 17:23
1
ultrabumbly 23 Sep 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> That point has been made on every thread on this subject, but it hasn't stopped people complaining !

Stab in the dark: it's not really the "where from" that bothers people, it's the "to whom".
In reply to Bill&Ben:

Partially agree.

British Mountaineering Council is too fussy
The BMC is too vague to people from the outside looking in
Im just not keen on ClimbBritain + the logo and font were AWFUL
9
In reply to Chris the Tall:

A fair bit of staff time and other resources have been consumed though Chris.
1
ultrabumbly 23 Sep 2016
In reply to idiotproof (Buxton MC):

Why does it being vague matter? If it is not an institution to promote the activities in which it is involved who gives a rat's arse if J. Doe, having no interest in any of those activities, is ignorant to its function.

I'd rather any body, with work do, defined itself by that work and not some "brand".
1
In reply to UKC News:

"All of the consultancy work leading up to the Climb Britain announcement has been funded by Sport England."
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/climb-britain-the-facts

Somewhat beside the point as far as I'm concerned, but a lot of people appear not to be aware of this.
In reply to UKC News:

Sanity prevails...
3
 john arran 23 Sep 2016
In reply to idiotproof (Buxton MC):

> Im just not keen on ClimbBritain + the logo and font were AWFUL

The name was fine and an improvement on what we have now.
The logo was mediocre and forgettable.
The font, however, was unforgivably atrocious.
22
 timjones 23 Sep 2016
In reply to john arran:

> The name was fine and an improvement on what we have now.

> The logo was mediocre and forgettable.

> The font, however, was unforgivably atrocious.

And the way the announcement was phrased was laughably, it made the organisation look absurd ;(

I'd say that the consultants should refund their fees, if I made such a hash of my work I wouldn't get paid for it.
2
 Babika 23 Sep 2016
In reply to Tyler:

>a lot of people on the Internet (many of whom were BMC members) objected because they didn't like it/thought they knew better.

A lot of real people turned up to meetings all over the country and made their views known as well! I suspect that it was this, rather than the internet debate that finally swung it.

Folk moan about all sorts of things from behind a keyboard but to give up an evening and travel a long way shows a real passion for something

2
 Chris the Tall 23 Sep 2016
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> A fair bit of staff time and other resources have been consumed though Chris.

True, but not necessarily a waste of time - mistakes were made and lesson learned. It was handled badly at first, then better, but it was a discussion which needed to happen at some point. I am surprised at the attachment people have to the word "council", and can go so worked up over a logo, but there you have it.

Maybe not the ideal way to get people involved in BMC matters, and along to meetings, but it has created a bit of awareness and (hopefully) shown people that the BMC does respond to members wishes.

I wonder if we'll ever find out who Moosemouse is ? Or what his agenda really was.....
 Neil Foster Global Crag Moderator 23 Sep 2016
In reply to Babika:

> Folk moan about all sorts of things from behind a keyboard but to give up an evening and travel a long way shows a real passion for something

Some of us do that every time there is an Area Meeting, thereby showing our passion for the things which really matter, such as access.

Do you...?
9
 Michael Gordon 23 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Thank goodness for that!

I like how they have talked about 'now with hindsight' - did they really not foresee the membership objecting? Hard to believe.
 Tyler 23 Sep 2016
In reply to Babika:
My understanding was that in all the meetings the opposition was not as fervent as online, to be expected obviously, but I'd be surprised if the Internet mob didn't play more of a part in the U-turn than you imply.

Edit to add 'not as fervent'. Completely changed the meaning if what I wanted to say!
Post edited at 18:33
1
 Chris the Tall 23 Sep 2016
In reply to john arran:

> The font, however, was unforgivably atrocious.

Again, surprised that people can get so worked up over a font, but found myself listening to a podcast last night about the Doves font - thrown into the Thames by it's creator in anger, found 100 years later by an obsessive disciple

https://www.creativereview.co.uk/recovering-the-doves-type/
 Will Hunt 23 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

EARTH TO SUB NORMAL LOBOTOMISED MORONS. I REPEAT, THIS IS EARTH CALLING ALL THE SUB NORMAL LOBOTOMISED MORONS.

The BMC did not pay any money to external consultants. Please stop suggesting they did, you utter idiots.
43
 Trangia 23 Sep 2016
In reply to Will Hunt:

>
> The BMC did not pay any money to external consultants. Please stop suggesting they did, you utter idiots.

If you read the thread, you will see that that point was conceded and corrected way back in it, so please don't revert to insults. It makes you look like an idiot.

3
 MG 23 Sep 2016
In reply to Will Hunt:

Rather than insulting people, perhaps consider whether whoever spent this taxpayers money, did so wisely.
2
 SChriscoli 23 Sep 2016
In reply to Tyler:

Could've sworn i read 50k in relation to rebrand cost to external consultants.

Cant find any citation. I retract to be just "money" then
1
 Will Hunt 23 Sep 2016
In reply to Trangia:

And yet, somehow, in all the previous discussion about this topic, which presumably people will have read before voicing their views at the local area meetings, the message didn't get through.
7
 JJ Spooner 23 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Dave Turnbull did say at the North Wales Area meeting that the process has probably cost the BMC itself around £8000 (i may be wrong on the exact amount).

This consisted of things such as:
-Staff time
-Trademarking
-Web domains

However some of this will have been well spent if Climb Britain can be used as a strong marketing tool.

People are quite right that the marketing agency process was all paid for by Sport England.
 stp 23 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:
Seems odd that 'Moutaineering' is considered more inclusive than 'Climb'. I've never done anything I considered true mountaineering and neither have the vast majority of people (climbers) I know. Is hillwalking supposed to count as mountaineering? Surely there are far more rock climbers than mountaineers?
Post edited at 19:32
12
 team fat belly 23 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Ultimately I suspect most outdoor types of any sort, but especially climbers, aren't too pleased with the idea of a bunch of advertising executives in bright ties and pin stripe suits watching a bear grylls episode and some footage of Dan Osman on youtube then going yeah I think we've got a handle on your vibe now and coming up with a brand name thats sums everyone up before they've even come down off coke they got down them during their long lunch.
1
 bouldery bits 23 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Not this again....
 Misha 23 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Looking through today's BMC newsletter, it's full of really positive stuff about initiatives to get people climbing and walking outdoors. I hope this will remain the BMC's focus now that this fiasco is behind it. They might even use Climb Britain as a marketing tool for the indoor team or getting people from indoor to outdoor climbing and mountaineering.
1
 Long Pinky 23 Sep 2016
In reply to Misha:

> They might even use Climb Britain as a marketing tool for the indoor team or getting people from indoor to outdoor climbing and mountaineering.

Oh god no, please keep all the indoor climbers indoors pls, theres already too may wall bred climbers let outside with all their chalk and fancy clothes.
6
 steve glasper 23 Sep 2016
In reply to Bill&Ben:

The three letter BMC acronym worked with new walkers and climbers 50 years ago, 40, 30, 20, 10, and 5 years ago and for the people who joined yesterday As far as I know the BMC membership is now as big as it's ever been so why shouldn't the time honoured and respected BMC logo work tomorrow ? What so different about needs of people who just want to go climbing, mountaineering, hill walking tomorrow (apart from smart phones)
1
 Chris the Tall 23 Sep 2016
In reply to steve glasper:

Actually 50 years ago no climbers or walkers joined the BMC, they joined clubs, and the clubs joined the BMC, a council of mountaineering cllubs. Individuals were only allowed in the 70s, but the structure, and the power of the clubs, remained.

Now I know many people don't think the words behind an acronym are important- who cares about the RAC for example ? Well, I do (and joined the AA !)
In reply to Jonathan Spooner:

I would be surprised if £8000 is anywhere near the actual cost. Dave Turnbull alone costs around £300-£400 a day when you factor in wages, NI, pensions, office overheads, travel expenses (actually probably more than £400) so £8k is peanuts when you start taking into account other things such as stationary, PR etc.
1
 Misha 23 Sep 2016
In reply to Long Pinky:

> Oh god no, please keep all the indoor climbers indoors pls, theres already too may wall bred climbers let outside with all their chalk and fancy clothes.

I hope that was a joke.
1
mysterion 23 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:
What amazing ineptness, lack of vision, etc this affair discloses. So now someone realises that a name and a description are separable. Wow!
Post edited at 22:27
Lusk 23 Sep 2016
In reply to Misha:

> Looking through today's BMC newsletter, it's full of really positive stuff about initiatives to get people climbing and walking outdoors. I hope this will remain the BMC's focus now that this fiasco is behind it. They might even use Climb Britain as a marketing tool for the indoor team or getting people from indoor to outdoor climbing and mountaineering.

I'm not right keen on this encouraging of more and more people to take up climbing and walking.
There's enough damage been done already to the limited places we have in the UK, especially the honey pot areas.
13
 Graeme Hammond 23 Sep 2016
In reply to steve glasper:

> As far as I know the BMC membership is now as big as it's ever been so why shouldn't the time honoured and respected BMC logo work tomorrow

Think you're forgetting the time honoured logo isn't as old as you think remember when it looked like this?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=old+bmc+logo&client=ms-android-huawei...
 pencilled in 24 Sep 2016
In reply to Graeme Hammond:
I'm not sure many of us are qualified to comment objectively on the aesthetic qualities of a font or even a brand name. The brand however lives on, through us; I always thought that a brand name should invoke a narrative, personality and feel that reflects the brand. For what it's worth I thought the name was an excellent reflection, colour and tone mildly simplistic but ok and the font edgy, like many of us.
How many climbers does it take to change a lightbulb? More than I thought apparently.
1
 MonkeyPuzzle 24 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Twice in one lifetime! It's Coco Pops / Choco Krispies all over again!
Lusk 24 Sep 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Twice? Thrice man!

I still haven't got over the chronic name change of Marathon bars.
 Misha 24 Sep 2016
In reply to Lusk:
I see, so it's ok for you and me to climb at Stanage or wherever because we've been doing it for a while but anyone who is new to climbing should stay indoors. That's really inclusive. It would also mean that in 50 years' time there would be no one climbing outdoors. Perhaps it will then be ok again for people new to climbing to venture outdoors.
2
Lusk 24 Sep 2016
In reply to Misha:

Ha, I knew that was coming.
I was born in 1960 and way back then we went out walking in the Dales etc with family and friends.
Then I started climbing with my mate from another school's climbing club. People got into it by word of mouth as it were, non of this promo stuff that we're saturated with in the 21st century.
I just think there are too many people crawling over a too limited space. It doesn't need promoting. If you want to get fit, sling on some old clothes and shoes and run round your local park or buy a push iron for £20 off ebay.
And the commercialization of it all, the gear?! I remember going into Alan Austins early 78, we need gortex jackets and mountain boots for the Alps, what colour do you want, red or blue and these boots will do you! And they did.

And I have two MOAC Originals.

19
 bouldery bits 24 Sep 2016
In reply to Lusk:


> And I have two MOAC Originals.

Good for you.
 Andy Say 24 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

I think that'#s really good.

Well done BMC.
 alastairmac 24 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

A good call. Mainly because it will mean we no longer have to see that British Nationalist / Unionist logo ....... with echoes of Thatcher era Toryism.
2
 george mc 24 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Now to be truly representative just needs to be renamed English Mountaineering Council...
3
 treesrockice 24 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Oh good!
 Ramon Marin 24 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Sad to see this, I liked Climb Britain. I inderstand we are all attached to the BMC name but I think it's good that institutions move on with the times. The average age of all of us here is about 30's or 40's, but if you think of all the youngsters coming up the grapevine that think the BMC is some funny daddy institution thay doesn't relate to them, it makes you think. But the vast majority disliked the change of name, so I'm happy the BMC listened to the membership and ruled in favour of the majority.
8
In reply to UKC News:

I definitely prefer BMC to Climb Britain, even though I am a climber and not a walker. BMC has loads of history attached to it. Plus it means I don't have to throw out my BMC t-shirts and buy Climb Britain ones.
 JHiley 25 Sep 2016
In reply to TobyA:

It's not about being anti-change. It's about credibility in access negotiations and speaking up for climbers (and hill walkers) generally. However you look at it Climb Britain just doesn't have the weight that British Mountaineering Council does. The new name was too 'fresh' and too informal and would just be dismissed out of hand.
If you have a brand with decades of history and respectability built up why throw it away?
 JHiley 25 Sep 2016
In reply to Lusk:

You knew that was coming because he's right.
Why does any of that, even owning two MOACs, give you any more right to use the space/ rock than anyone else?
 dereke12000 25 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Phew, one less pointless rebranding exercise !!
 Offwidth 25 Sep 2016
In reply to JHiley:

In the rebrand fhe BMC was always remaining as a 'trading name' and still could have been used for other purposes (eg access negotiations).

 Offwidth 25 Sep 2016
In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Ah but the intermet force strong was not when occurred that logo change.
 Offwidth 25 Sep 2016
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Its amazing how many organisations and external stakeholders fail to fully cost staff time involved with change. My institution spent many tens of thousand on a barely usable logo (Pantone colours, poor scalability, poor external student feedback on identifiability etc) before we even considered aesthetics and over the years has burnt millions to save tens of thousands on consumables costs (eg an ineffective central photocopy service and making expensive staff queue at much cheaper and rarer shitty local photocopiers, as we allow almost no local printers). I'd guess the full BMC cost will be double that 8k. In this case though, I think it's forgivable... democratic accountability costs are important and although people get angry on the internet (and some spout all sorts of shite) this rebrand issue was pretty deep set in terms of membership views on their being a communication and consultation failure, irrespective of views on the merits of the rebrand.
 JHiley 25 Sep 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

But then the BMC brand would gradually become less recognisable over time until it's forgotten and doesn't count for much.
By planning that from the start (if that's really what they did) they were kind of admitting that 'Climb Britain' is a weaker name.
 TobyA 25 Sep 2016
In reply to JHiley:

> credibility in access negotiations and speaking up for climbers (and hill walkers) generally. However you look at it Climb Britain just doesn't have the weight that British Mountaineering Council does.

As the organisation never acted under the new name, logically there is no evidence to support that claim. What you are suggesting is supposition - most people in the UK have no idea what the BMC is. Anyway, wasn't the plan to continue access work under the BMC moniker regardless?

In reply to UKC News:

Instead of rehashing the arguments, here they are in full...

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=646409
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=646638
 wbo 25 Sep 2016
In reply to Lusk:

Honestly, so what. If you think there's too many people go somewhere else. I've been around nearly as long but I'm not going to begrudge others the enjoyment I've had and be a bit of a special snowflake
 Doug 25 Sep 2016
In reply to TobyA:
> ... - most people in the UK have no idea what the BMC is.

Not true, everybody knows it's the doctors trade union, or was it a company who built cars back in the day?

Post edited at 15:57
 JHiley 25 Sep 2016
In reply to TobyA:
You're right it's supposition. We are comparing two brands/names there are no facts. However I think it's fairly obvious. If what offwidth said about them always planning to keep the BMC name for access etc is true that suggests that even the people behind the change thought so.
(Although i thought that was a concession not their original plan... Offwidth knows much much more than me though.)
TBH this was my only concern throughout this. I don't mind the logo/ font etc and am not sentimental.
Post edited at 15:53
 Babika 25 Sep 2016
In reply to Neil Foster:

> Some of us do that every time there is an Area Meeting, thereby showing our passion for the things which really matter, such as access.

> Do you...?


Err yes? Whats it to you? I raised a point about access at the last meeting.
Do i become a better person now you know that?
2
In reply to UKC News:

The way I see all this is that for me, the name of the organisation should be massively unimportant to its members. I don't think that many people who attend meetings, crag clear-ups, etc would have withdrawn their membership and stopped attending these great events.

The BMC would also not have stopped doing any of the great stuff it is currently doing.

The rebrand was to make it more obvious what the organisation was to new/young climbers and hillwalkers, and to attract these people to get involved by removing the words Mountaineering and Council as council sounds like a lot of old beardos sitting in a room tutting at any new things that come along (...oh hold on a second) and Mountaineering doesn't sound inclusive to many (although I'd argue as an umbrella term mountaineering covers climbing and hillwalking fairly well).

Attracting new members is to my mind way more important than keeping the old beardos happy because without new, young members the BMC risks stagnating and becoming irrelevant.

At the end of the day call it the National Chips Front for all I care, just keep doing the good work (including keeping Dan Middleton busy) and attract more new members.

To all those who were against this name change - do you agree with anything I've just said? Be interested if/how many would have pulled their membership if the rebranding had gone ahead.

Disclaimer; I like the name BMC and originally thought Climb Britain was a little lame. After my knee returned to its normal position however, my head started to do its thing (rare) and I am actually sad the rebrand has been cancelled. Could have been a great way to get more young climbers active in the great work the BMC does.
5
 MG 26 Sep 2016
In reply to Duncan Campbell:

> To all those who were against this name change - do you agree with anything I've just said? Be interested if/how many would have pulled their membership if the rebranding had gone ahead.

Not as a direct result but the message to me would have been that the organisation was less relevant to my interests than previously and moving further away. At some point such a trend would make me leave.
1
In reply to MG:

So if the BMC had renamed but continued in every other way as before (which I am almost 100% certain it would have) you would still feel the same?

Genuinely interested how a new name for an organisation that is exactly as it was before is less relevant to your interests? You are presumably a climber? You obviously are passionate about it and what the BMC does for the sport/activity/blah. Why is this name so important to you?

Do you not agree that without new, younger members the BMC risks becoming irrelevant?
 Damo 26 Sep 2016
In reply to Duncan Campbell:

>

> Do you not agree that without new, younger members the BMC risks becoming irrelevant?

Apologies if I missed it, but was there evidence and analysis published of the market research conducted that proved that younger climbers were put off joining specifically because of the name 'BMC' ?
1
 toad 26 Sep 2016
In reply to Damo:
My thoughts exactly. There seemed to be a big unsubstantiated assumption there

Ps I know events have moved on rather, but I'd still be interested in the ukc article that never was - a bit of background and context after the dust has settled, maybe.

 1poundSOCKS 26 Sep 2016
In reply to Duncan Campbell:

> Attracting new members is to my mind way more important than keeping the old beardos happy because without new, young members the BMC risks stagnating and becoming irrelevant.

But is there any evidence it was stagnating, and that the cause of stagnation was the name BMC? Is there even evidence the people objecting are only 'old beardos', which seems to be just a stereotype based on prejudice, and doesn't do your argument any favours.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

At the Peak Area Meet I was in the minority at 26 and was potentially the youngest attendee (might be wrong but there weren't many around my age. Most if not all that spoke against the name change were 45+ I think. 'Old beardos' is just a little humour - I'm hardly calling anyone a xenophobe!

In reply to Damo; I have spoken to a few people around my age and more than a few said they felt mountaineering council bore no resemblance to what they do and they only really became interested in the BMC long after they heard about it, when they found out what the BMC did. I'm sure they aren't alone. (admittedly this isn't market research but I imagine something was done + you probably only need to look at the BMC membership files and go to the wall to see that their are loads of young people going climbing to see that there is a problem somehwhere...?)
In reply to UKC News: Obviously the rebrand was handled badly and I suspect most will agree with that. However, to then do what a tiny minority of people want (a couple of hundred people out of a membership of 75,000) is just as silly. I suspect tens of thousands didn't mind the change or liked it or saw the name as completely irrelevant. Listening to those who shout the loudest is always a bad idea. They should have just stuck to their original decent idea.

Next!


4
In reply to Duncan Campbell: Of course, you're right that no one apart from idiots would cancel their membership based purely on the name, but of course people like to threaten that it it seems to be taken seriously. You are also right in noting that the vast majoirty of people who were objecting to the change are older (e.g. 45+) I'm 47 but I think it was a great idea to rebrand as Climb Britain.

1
 MG 26 Sep 2016
In reply to Duncan Campbell:
> So if the BMC had renamed but continued in every other way as before (which I am almost 100% certain it would have) you would still feel the same?

No, in that case. However, I don't believe it would have. It is clearly getting more interested in climbing competitions and Olympic climbing and so on, which don't interest me. The name change I think was a reflection of this and if accompanied by a general change in focus would have made the organisation less relevant to me. It may of course still go in this direction anyway, but I think the objection may have highlighted to the officers that there are quite of lot of people who don't find this trend desirable.
Post edited at 10:29
1
 Marek 26 Sep 2016
In reply to Duncan Campbell:
> The way I see all this is that for me, the name of the organisation should be massively unimportant to its members. I don't think that many people who attend meetings, crag clear-ups, etc would have withdrawn their membership and stopped attending these great events...



For some/many people - OK, myself - the name change in isolation wasn't the issue. It was merely perceived as a possible symptom of a far more significant underlying change. In that same way that a niggling pain in the chest shouldn't be ignored in case it indicates something more serious. It was exacerbated by the manner in which the change was being made, without any consultation with the membership. Plus an increasing focus on climbing at the Olympics. Those things together just created the impression - correct or not - that there were changes happening that were at odds with many peoples' expectation for the BMC and its role.

It's hard to get away from the point that a name change *is* a symptom of an underlying change. If it isn't, then what's the point? The change may be good or it may be bad, but with no open discussion about the change and its merits, people will view the 'symptom' with some suspicion. If the BMC executive had engaged with its membership along the lines of "This is how we think the BMC needs to evolve in terms of what it stands for and what it does", then I'm sure any consequential impact on the name would have been a complete non-issue.
Post edited at 10:37
 Chris the Tall 26 Sep 2016
In reply to Damo:

> Apologies if I missed it, but was there evidence and analysis published of the market research conducted that proved that younger climbers were put off joining specifically because of the name 'BMC' ?

A lot of the indignation over this rebranding seems to have been based around the money - not even BMC money - paid the consultants called Thinkfarm and b-focused. I imagine there were be another round of internet outrage if the BMC were to spend it's own money on market research.

3
 Damo 26 Sep 2016
In reply to Duncan Campbell:

> ...you probably only need to look at the BMC membership files and go to the wall to see that their are loads of young people going climbing to see that there is a problem somehwhere...?)

Why is there a problem? That seems to assume that young climbers *should* or must join some organisation. Maybe they don't want to. Maybe they get their sense of community and their voice elsewhere? I'm not saying it wouldn't be good if they joined, it probably would be, but again - assumptions. What if the name was changed and no more young people joined?

The whole things seems to be placing a hell of a lot of influence on a name.

I appreciate your reply, I wasn't trying to be facetious above, but I lost interest in the discussion soon after it came out, as regardless of merits, or lack thereof, in management and PR terms it was handled appallingly, both in execution and in the spin soon after.

What struck me about your argument further up, is that there seemed to be an assumption that Something Must Be Done to attract more young people, as if the BMC was not doing this. Then you said that even if the name changed, don't worry because the BMC would not change - it would be business as usual. So which is it? Change or not?

So, would the desired effect come from the name change alone? Wow!

Or, was the name change indicative of a change in strategy, direction or emphasis on the part of the organisation?
Some people are turning inside out to say nothing will change. So why need a new name?
Some are saying things should change. So will just changing the name do this?
In reply to MG:

Indoor and competition climbing are something that is going to become more popular in the future I'd imagine. This is not something I am particularly in favour of but as long as the our ethic of trad climbing is upheld and the crags are used sustainably then who are we to complain?

This is actually a good example of why the BMC needs a rebrand. As competition climbing becomes more popular (along with its inclusion in the olympics) it is important it stays up to date with these developments. If it fails to do so then another organisation may be set up to do a better job*. If this happens the BMC could well become irrelevant as a reasonable amount of sport england's money will divert to CompClimbBritain then you can forget the BMC having any clout to do the important work regarding access, creating guidebooks, etc.

Will this be worth keeping the old name? Do you disagree that the BMC has to move with the times in order to effectively continue to do what it currently does well?

*disclaimer; this may not happen but I think it could be likely if the BMC dropped a bollock on the comp climbing front - I don't feel like comp climbing is a major priority of the BMC so this dropping of a bollock (humour) might not be unthinkable.
 Marek 26 Sep 2016
In reply to Frank the Husky:

> ... the vast majoirty of people who were objecting to the change are older (e.g. 45+) ...

Do you actually have any evidence to support this statement? I'm not saying you're wrong - I just haven't seen any data. What's the age distribution of individual BMC members anyway?
 Damo 26 Sep 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> ... I imagine there were be another round of internet outrage if the BMC were to spend it's own money on market research.

Couldn't they ask for a show of hands at each area meeting yay or nay to "should the BMC hire professionals to judge whether we should change our name to attract more members?"

Then put a simple survey on the BMC site asking the same question, send an email to members linking to it and asking for participation, and put a survey here on UKC as well, asking the same question.

That seems like a few hours work.
 MG 26 Sep 2016
In reply to Duncan Campbell:

> This is actually a good example of why the BMC needs a rebrand. As competition climbing becomes more popular (along with its inclusion in the olympics) it is important it stays up to date with these developments. If it fails to do so then another organisation may be set up to do a better job*.

That would make a lot of sense to me. In fact above (or on a related thread) I suggested pretty much this approach - one organisation focused on competition/sport/Olympics, with BMC "classic" focusing on access etc, possibly combining with the Ramblers for greater clout. I see the two areas as so separate that two organisations make sense.

I don't see how you reconcile thinking the BMC would continue as before after a name change, and thinking it is important it changes!

1
In reply to Marek: No, I don't have any actual evidence, it's all just anecdotal. The majority of the people on the Lancs Rock Revival FB page who are rabidly against it are all older than me and crowing about the decision. It's always older members of organizations like the BMC who complain the most and the loudest!

4
 Marek 26 Sep 2016
In reply to Duncan Campbell:

... the BMC has to move with the times ...

To me, empty phrases like this are just an indication of wanting to do something just to be seen to be doing something. What does 'move with the times' mean specifically? Suggest some concrete issues/opportunities that the BMC needs to address and then we can discuss the priorities and means.

Let's discuss really world issues, not marketing semantics!

mysterion 26 Sep 2016
In reply to Marek:
"Hey it's 2016 not 2006 dude, you all, like, climb upwards, etc..."

(quote from consultants report)
Post edited at 11:52
 whenry 26 Sep 2016
In reply to Frank the Husky:

Most of the people I know who were against the proposal are in their twenties and thirties. They joined once they could justify spending money on something that is entirely discretionary.
 Marek 26 Sep 2016
In reply to Frank the Husky:

> No, I don't have any actual evidence, it's all just anecdotal. The majority of the people on the Lancs Rock Revival FB page who are rabidly against it are all older than me and crowing about the decision. It's always older members of organizations like the BMC who complain the most and the loudest!

Hmm. I could only see one post that might have been 'crowing' and certainly none that could be deemed as remotely 'rabid'. Not really statistically significant is it, whatever their age? Doesn't really support the "It's always older members..." assertion. Unless by "organizations like the BMC" you mean organisations with lots of passionate older people, in which case it's a bit of a tautology/


 1poundSOCKS 26 Sep 2016
In reply to Duncan Campbell:

> At the Peak Area Meet I was in the minority at 26 and was potentially the youngest attendee (might be wrong but there weren't many around my age. Most if not all that spoke against the name change were 45+ I think

I assumed you talking about the situation nationally, not just at one meet.
1
In reply to Marek:

Well I'm sure you're right and I don't know what a tautology is. The fact remains that the BMC have now reversed a decision based on the opinions of a few hundred members out of 75,000 which is ludicrous.
3
In reply to Frank the Husky:

> The fact remains that the BMC have now reversed a decision based on the opinions of a few hundred members out of 75,000 which is ludicrous.

As ludicrous as making a decision without consulting any of those 75000...?

The meetings were open to all, both pro and con. One assumes both sides turned up and expressed their opinions. If the resulting decision had been to continue with the rebrand, would you have said this was also 'a decision based on the opinions of a few hundred members out of 75,000 which is ludicrous'?
 andrewmc 26 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

The danger of not attracting the new generation of indoor and competition climbers (not so much a danger for me, but perhaps for those who don't want the name change) is that they end up forming a separate body to represent them if the BMC fails to do so. This body then aggressively attacts new members, and grows until it has more members (or at least more climbing members) than the BMC. This group of indoor/sport climbers becomes, in the eyes of Government, the representative body for climbing in the UK and funding for the BMC shrinks. This new generation of climbers, without the older generation still in the BMC, starts forging a new ethic as they move outside. As the larger body of climbers, they hold access meetings to allow debate on what the community feels is acceptable at what crags, but perhaps their views are not the same as the remaining minority of climbers who are BMC members...

Or everyone stays in the BMC and the peculiar quirky British 'ethics' are passed on to the next generation and preserved. Personally I think it is good thing to encourage people to go climbing and to join the BMC, but even if you don't there are good reasons to attract new indoor climbers (walls aren't going away) into the BMC.
In reply to captain paranoia: The two situations are fairly different. In the original scenario, you have a considered decision made by members of the National Council and Executive who were elected by the areas. In the second scenario you have people turning up to a meeting - many might not even be members - and voting based on information which might be patchy at best. Even now I hear people moaning about the amount of money the rebrand cost the BMC when it's been made clear time and again that it didn't cost them anything.

The problem with asking 75,000 people is that you get 75,000 opinions. If I'd been in charge I'd have put the membership fee up by 50p and then people could have got *really* angry about something else that doesn't matter.

If the result had gone the other way I'd have considered it equally meaningless.
Ian Carey 26 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

I thought the re-brand was fine.

Ian
In reply to andrewmcleod:

> The danger of not attracting the new generation of indoor and competition climbers (not so much a danger for me, but perhaps for those who don't want the name change) is that they end up forming a separate body to represent them if the BMC fails to do so.

Once again; where is the evidence that 'the yoof' aren't joining?

And, if not, why not? Is it really just the 'stuffy' name? As Frank argues, a name is unimportant; it's what you do, and how you engage that's important.

Many of my young colleagues are climbers. I shall ask them...
 winhill 26 Sep 2016
In reply to Frank the Husky:

> Even now I hear people moaning about the amount of money the rebrand cost the BMC when it's been made clear time and again that it didn't cost them anything.

But it's been made clear in this thread that it has cost the BMC at least £8,000, plus of course all the petrol people had to buy to get to the area meetings to get a voice.
 Damo 27 Sep 2016
In reply to Frank the Husky:

> ... Even now I hear people moaning about the amount of money the rebrand cost the BMC when it's been made clear time and again that it didn't cost them anything.

True, but then, money is never free. Something is always expected in return. It may not have been explicit or recorded, but that doesn't mean there weren't expectations behind the scenes. Who just gives away money for nothing?
 Marek 27 Sep 2016
In reply to Frank the Husky:

> If the result had gone the other way I'd have considered it equally meaningless.

Meaningless? Perhaps. As Winston Churchill (sort of) said, "(Representative) democracy is a lousy system of governance. Till you consider the alternatives". Problems occur - and will always occur - when the people who do the governing forget - wilfully or otherwise - that their obligation is to represent the wishes of their constituents. When representation becomes 'telling them what's good for them' it risks getting messy and ugly. And an Internet spat plus graceful retreat is as good an outcome as they can hope for. Of course one powerful tool those governing do have and should have used is 'reasoning and persuasion', but that another topic, hopefully for the future.
 Simon Caldwell 27 Sep 2016
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Once again; where is the evidence that 'the yoof' aren't joining?

The figures that were given around the time of the rebrand announcement suggested that the opposite is true, and that young people are pretty well represented, particularly given that membership is entirely optional - you can go climbing without joining the BMC.
In reply to Marek: I completely agree with you. the democratic systems used in most of the wetsern world are very poor. I'd prefer a benevolent dictatorship any day of the week.

1
 Will Hunt 27 Sep 2016
In reply to winhill:

£8k? That amounts to just less than 1 metric F*ck All to a large organisation such as the BMC, especially since the Climb Britain brand stands to pocket the BMC an amount of revenue if it can entice in the indoor climbers.
1
mysterion 27 Sep 2016
In reply to Will Hunt:

1. Spend £8,000
2. Change name to 'Climb Britain'
3. ?????
4. Profit
In reply to mysterion:

> 3. ?????

Indeed. Why not just do this ????? magic instead of changing the name?

If only we can identify what ????? is...

If the BMC want to attract indoor climbers, they need to engage indoor climbers with a 'what has the BMC ever done for you?' campaign.
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

> The figures that were given around the time of the rebrand announcement suggested that the opposite is true, and that young people are pretty well represented

That was my recollection, too, but it was only a vague recollection, and I couldn't find the references.
In reply to Duncan Campbell:

It's a shame that the BMC have bowed down to the older, armchair demographic of UKC and beyond - it's like the Brexit all over again.

I agree with you Duncan, the name BMC doesn't attract people our age for the reasons you gave above. No, we haven't gone out and done research on this 1poundsock, but we have plenty of friends in the younger climbing community. They are very open about not seeing the benefits of joining the BMC, they see it as a group of old people making decisions about things that don't relate to them.



13
 Marek 28 Sep 2016
In reply to The Green Giant:

> ... we have plenty of friends in the younger climbing community. They are very open about not seeing the benefits of joining the BMC, they see it as a group of old people making decisions about things that don't relate to them.

Neither of which would be addressed by a simple name/logo change - nothing else was supposed to change.
Now if the change had been about what the BMC *does* as opposed to what it's *called*, we could have had a much more meaningful discussion.

2
 Offwidth 28 Sep 2016
In reply to Marek:

Well thats not my experience.. over the years being involved with talking to young indoor climbers about what our BMC Peak area newsletters were all about the BMC name was confusing and you usually ended up saying its the organisation that represents and supports British Climbing (and in the last two years an improved emphasis on British hil and mountain walking ....which shares common ground and access issues).
 Simon Caldwell 28 Sep 2016
In reply to The Green Giant:

> It's a shame that the BMC have bowed down to the older, armchair demographic of UKC and beyond

By all accounts of the recent area meetings, large majorities of those attending were against the change. Or are you suggesting they all took their armchairs along to the meetings?
 1poundSOCKS 28 Sep 2016
In reply to The Green Giant:

> but we have plenty of friends in the younger climbing community.

I have younger climbing friends.

> They are very open about not seeing the benefits of joining the BMC, they see it as a group of old people making decisions about things that don't relate to them.

Mine aren't.

> No, we haven't gone out and done research on this 1poundsock

This anecdotal evidence isn't getting us anywhere. Lets just all admit we don't know? The drive to change wasn't based on evidence, so the motivation was something else, or based on prejudice.
 Offwidth 28 Sep 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
The evidence was based on a marketing survey. I believe it to be flawed survey but it happened, it is real evidence and it confirms my pretty wide experience (15 odd years explaining the benefits of the BMC to new students in my Uni club and longer explaining the same to young climbers in local walls). I just didn't often see young climbers knowing anything about the BMC and where they did its because they were already avid trad or climbing history fans or from an environment where the BMC was well known (say through a climbing family) the BMC name wasn't helpful unless aready well known. To be clear I think the main survey flaw was not being more careful to ascertain what BMC members would think of a name change.... the resulting expensive fiasco would then have been avoided.
Post edited at 11:07
 1poundSOCKS 28 Sep 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> I believe it to be flawed survey

Was it just done at walls then?
 Marek 28 Sep 2016
In reply to Offwidth:
> The evidence was based on a marketing survey...

I guess the bit I don't understand is the age-related issue ("younger climber aren't interested in joining the BMC"). It may be going back a bit, but the indication from the 2010 survey was that the top two reasons for *anyone* to join the BMC were insurance and qualifications - very pragmatics reasons which have little to do with supporting the activities of the BMC. Surely the big problem then is getting *anyone* to join the BMC - young or old - rather than focussing just on the appearance of 'modernity'.
Post edited at 11:48
 Ian W 28 Sep 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

No. Read the BMC website articles and the previous threads / links. Its all in there.
 1poundSOCKS 28 Sep 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> No. Read the BMC website articles and the previous threads / links. Its all in there.

I didn't ask you. :P
2
 Offwidth 28 Sep 2016
In reply to Marek:

My interest in being involved talking to people about the benefits of the BMC is mainly beyond membership its more about advertising and encouraging volunteering, supporting the guidebook work I've been heavily involved with and doing what we can on the access front. It came from my Uni club and built through the area meets and the BMC employed and lay elected officers I've worked with.

I'm not so sure age is the key issue iindoors, I suspect its more about being new to climbing and being unaware of the organisation but there are many more new younger indoor climbers than new older ones, so I talk to more. As for older established climbers not joining etc: I've said before here and elsewhere the biggest scandal around the BMC is why more such climbers who should know better don't support the organisation more. Non members who climb massively outnumber climbing members (and those who are just club BMC members make the organisation no money). Its also more about time than money... a significant non member volunteer who is cash poor but who can afford to give time to help ( say on access issues) is doing more to help than a rich climber just paying subs.
 MG 28 Sep 2016
In reply to Offwidth:
> (and those who are just club BMC members make the organisation no money).

On what basis do you say that?. I, for example, am a club member three times over so I pay more than an individual member and do not get all the benefits. I think you need to come down from your perch of self-appointed arbiter of who is and is not worthy of consideration as a worthwhile member.
Post edited at 13:57
2
 danm 28 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:

If you pay the BMC fee 3 times over, you're doing it wrong. You can claim multiple fees back for a refund: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/claiming-multiple-membership-refunds
 MG 28 Sep 2016
In reply to danm:
I could, but choose not to. Heaven forbid I would become one of Offwidth's underclass members!
Post edited at 14:05
1
 GrahamD 28 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:

I'm in the same boat as you...Multiple unclaimed club memberships. Out of choice.
 Ian W 28 Sep 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Apologies. I now realise basing your posts and questions on facts would completely ruin it for you.

Sorry again.

Won't do it again.

Sorry.........
 1poundSOCKS 28 Sep 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> I now realise basing your posts and questions on facts would completely ruin it for you.

Ruin what?
 Offwidth 28 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:

In what sense did I say your were underclass? My point is single club members make almost no money for the BMC and although any membership fee income is good, it's worth less than volunteer time (not being BMC centric either... I'd put club volunteers or any other volunteers that provide a general service to climbers in some way in the same bracket as BMC volunteers).
 MG 28 Sep 2016
In reply to Offwidth:
> In what sense did I say your were underclass?

By stating they were part of the "biggest scandal around the BMC"

> My point is single club members make almost no money for the BMC

Which is false. Each one results in £13.25 for the BMC, and as I noted many pay more than once and cost the BMC less than full members.

> and although any membership fee income is good, it's worth less than volunteer time

Yes, yes volunteers like for example, ooh you perhaps, are wonderful people.
Post edited at 16:20
3
 andrewmc 28 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:

A few hours of volunteer time is probably worth far more to the BMC than my yearly membership subscription (club upgrade, not that it matters). Unnecessary additional club memberships are basically charitable donations; I am very uncomfortable with the idea that having made a few voluntary charitable donations gives you any more say in the organization or a 'better member'. I don't like the idea of having 'bought' influence. I applaud anyone who does give money to the BMC voluntarily but I hope it is given out of the goodness of their hearts and not for some sense of superiority or worse...

Frankly, anyone who has ever given any significant time volunteering to the BMC will outrank me in effective contributions to the organization no matter how many years I stay a member.

Finally, your (first) membership fee is not a donation - you are (partly) paying for a service, and services have costs. I suspect what Offwidth is referring to is that the £13.25 minus insurance, administration, postage, printing etc. comes to very little...

Ask not what your club/region/the BMC can do for you, but what you can do for it...
 MG 28 Sep 2016
In reply to andrewmcleod:
> A few hours of volunteer time is probably worth far more to the BMC than my yearly membership subscription (club upgrade, not that it matters). Unnecessary additional club memberships are basically charitable donations; I am very uncomfortable with the idea that having made a few voluntary charitable donations gives you any more say in the organization or a 'better member'. I don't like the idea of having 'bought' influence. I applaud anyone who does give money to the BMC voluntarily but I hope it is given out of the goodness of their hearts and not for some sense of superiority or worse...


Agree with all that. Never said anything about being better. However I take strong issue with club members being considered second class, or worse part of a."scandal"

> Frankly, anyone who has ever given any significant time volunteering to the BMC will outrank me in effective contributions to the organization no matter how many years I stay a member.

Yep agree there too

> Finally, your (first) membership fee is not a donation - you are (partly) paying for a service, and services have costs. I suspect what Offwidth is referring to is that the £13.25 minus insurance, administration, postage, printing etc. comes to very little...

Of course it's not a donation, which is all the more reason why it shouldn't be sneered at. I suspect full membership leaves rather little either - in fact I would be troubled if it did, the BMC should not be in the business of profit making.
Post edited at 17:39
 Ian W 28 Sep 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> Ruin what?

Sorry, not clear enough - dont know why i wrote that - i meant facts would ruin your points and questions, as they would have been answered already, negating the necessity to post at all. Its all in there.
 Offwidth 28 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:

I do think it's wrong club members get BMC membership pretty much at cost unless they do other things for climbing. Either they volunteer or should upgrade. Several clubs were keen to point out they really represented many votes at area meets in this rebrand issue. At the last AGM there were also clubs pleading poverty of some members to resist fee change but the solution seems to be to be volunteer based cross-subsidy not resisting fee rises within clubs.
2
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

No, it was done by phone to pre-selected people (I was one). The selection was done by the BMC office. Did this provide a representative sample? Almost certainly not.
 MG 28 Sep 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

Are you against family membership too?

After the cost of a magazine (~£10 just to print and post) and insurance (£10?) the difference in membership contributions disappear, or possibly reverse.
 1poundSOCKS 28 Sep 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> i meant facts would ruin your points and questions, as they would have been answered already, negating the necessity to post at all. Its all in there.

How can you ruin questions, they're just questions? And it would be nice to have my points ruined by facts, it would help restore trust for a lot of people (I think the reversal has helped a lot to do that anyway) but I haven't found any facts (I did try), and you don't seem to be helping.
1
 1poundSOCKS 28 Sep 2016
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> No, it was done by phone to pre-selected people (I was one).

Thanks. What did they ask you, if you don't mind me asking?
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Many of my young colleagues are climbers. I shall ask them...

I asked my colleagues, who are fairly recent graduates, so mid-twenties.

Most of them are already BMC members (either Individuals, or through being members of university or local climbing or mountaineering clubs).

They are aware of the BMC, and what it does, and don't see it as being dominated by pipe-smoking greybeards. Perhaps that's because some of them are club committee members, etc...

They were aware of the proposed rebranding exercise, and thought the idea of throwing away a well-known brand was stupid.

They are all engineers, though, so fairly pragmatic types...
Post edited at 18:47
 FactorXXX 28 Sep 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Thanks. What did they ask you, if you don't mind me asking?

More importantly, what was the reply and is it repeatable?
In reply to MG:

> I, for example, am a club member three times over so I pay more than an individual member and do not get all the benefits.

Oh-oh... Individual Members. That was the last BMC fiasco to be hotly disputed on UKC...
 RupertD 28 Sep 2016
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
> No, it was done by phone to pre-selected people (I was one). The selection was done by the BMC office. Did this provide a representative sample? Almost certainly not.

That was done in addition to other market research.
Post edited at 20:06
 Offwidth 29 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:
I'm against any membership fee structure that doesn't gives the organisation a fair income. I've already said many times in my view this is in the context that volunteering trumps subs and some people are genuinely cash poor. The rules are also the rules... this is a moral argument, no one is forced to contribute more and its also possible to donate money for those who are time poor.

Net income on subs is not a profit. The organisation has to fund activity and pay wages and it needs to be able to support its volunteers. Net income on sub levels matter very much.

As for failing to claim refunds not being a donation... of couse it's a donation but why not do it more efficiently... claim it and gift aid an equivalent cost instead to the Access and Conservation Trust (or other trusts the BMC are associated with)
Post edited at 09:42
 Simon Caldwell 29 Sep 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> I do think it's wrong club members get BMC membership pretty much at cost unless they do other things for climbing. Either they volunteer or should upgrade.

Given that choice, most would I suspect decide not to join at all. Especially those who join a club, pay their subs, and are never otherwise heard of from one year to the next. Even if £13.50 were "pretty much at cost" (and I doubt that), then it still provides greater income than £0.00, as well as boosting membership numbers which must help with any negotiations etc.
 Simon Caldwell 29 Sep 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> The organisation has to fund activity and pay wages and it needs to be able to support its volunteers.
...
> of couse it's a donation but why not do it more efficiently... claim it and gift aid an equivalent cost instead to the Access and Conservation Trust (or other trusts the BMC are associated with)

Maybe those not reclaiming their subs want to help with the running costs of the BMC?
 Offwidth 29 Sep 2016
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Maybe they do, I was just pointing out an alternative that can be gift aided and gives assistance to the access funds.
 Offwidth 29 Sep 2016
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Thats up to them... I have greater faith in the generosity of a good number of climbers and those not contributing in other ways are no loss to me. I know the roughly cost neutral position is true as others have investigated and confirmed it (and the BMC would have slapped my wrist if I was wrong). I'm speaking as a member who volunteers extensively and who upgraded when the issues became obvious to me. The BMC I'm sure will think differently as numbers matter as well as income but in deciding that they must be balancing against pressure from the clubs. Just to be clear again I have nothing against club members who contribute in other ways (volunteering is even built into some club structures) just those who take club BMC membership and its benefits at cost and do nothing else for climbing. Clubs have a similar problem... increase fees to a fairer level for the services offered and good work they do and mean people may leave. The meanness of many climbers who are not poor remains in my view a much bigger scandal than any rebrand issues.
 FreshSlate 29 Sep 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

How much does club member cost the BMC? Do you have a breakdown?
 fabricio 29 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

I'm just glad, mainly because that 80's typography is, shall I say unpleasant to the eye? I do support the rebranding, I'm all for it. I think the new brand could/should better represent all activities within its remit. I don't even know the complete history of BMC. Maybe it started as mountaineering only and has later outgrown from it, so the brand now is associated with something that is no longer meaningful. But rebranding is more than that. There are more questions to be asked, and one of those questions: "Who should care about our brand?" did not get asked but by the looks of it got answered. I'm happy they've listened to that, not many do, only to regret miserably.
 MG 29 Sep 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

Your arrogant attitude is rather unpleasant. I outlined above how, even ignoring dual payments, the financial contributions must be very close for the two types of membership once the additional costs of individual members are removed. Rather than thinly disguised bragging about your contributions (which I am sure are indeed substantial) how about a bit of modesty and acceptance that not everyone has the time or inclination to volunteer for the BMC but are happy to pay appropriate membership, and that this doesn't make then part of a.scandal?
 Chris the Tall 29 Sep 2016
In reply to FreshSlate:

Jeez, how on earth did this get dragged up again ?

If anyone thinks there is an easy solution to this problem, then a few nights in Manchester with reps from a variety of clubs will dispel that notion. However the current situation seems an acceptable compromise.

Some clubs - usually those with lots of active climbers - were happy to pay more as most of their members were keen to support the BMC. Other clubs, often those with more "social" or non-climbing members, were quite opposed. And then there were the "special" clubs.....

The main cost to the BMC is public liability insurance, which covers all members and which is very important to clubs - they could get sued by people on meets, using huts etc. There was a time when the per-capita cost, plus such things as the costs of admin and sending out Summit, was less than the membership fee, and the clubs refused to an accept an increase. This is not the case anymore.

I'm not sure of the latest figures - and they would only be estimates anyway - but I suspect that club members contribute around £4 per head, and individual members around 4 times that, to the work of the BMC. Apparently you do get some clubs were 75% of the membership are inactive, so it balances out (as long as their votes aren't cast by someone else.....)

Some club members have upgraded to full membership (but the numbers were always disappointing, less than 2000 IIRC) and yes you get those who are members of multiple clubs and may or may not claim a refund.

One of my suggestions was that this could be improved by changing things round a bit - enabling someone with individual BMC membership to join a club without have to pay anything extra to the BMC. So someone in multiple clubs would just pay the BMC once. Another suggestion of mine was that anyone with membership of multiple clubs would automatically get the upgrade to full membership. But I guess that was a bit ambitious.
Carl Banham 29 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

when I look at it I just think the Tricolor mountain logo would have been good for a French organisation...maybe they can sell it on.
 Forcan Reg 29 Sep 2016
In reply to UKC News:

It was a silly name. And anyway, re-branding is usually done with a view to commercial advantage, so it's hardly going to be a success if it excludes a large section of the potential 'customers'.
 GrahamD 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> One of my suggestions was that this could be improved by changing things round a bit - enabling someone with individual BMC membership to join a club without have to pay anything extra to the BMC. So someone in multiple clubs would just pay the BMC once. Another suggestion of mine was that anyone with membership of multiple clubs would automatically get the upgrade to full membership. But I guess that was a bit ambitious.

A bit a night mare for small clubs to manage, though. Its hard enough dealing with rates for climbers, cavers and climbing cavers in our club, with different rates depending on when people join. Adding other categories isn't likely to happen.
 Offwidth 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

I was told by someone I trust the difference is much lower now and that was on the full obvious direct costs (but you, cant add in all the use of BMC time and facility by clubs and cost that). I'm going to have to leave it at that as I dont have the data myself. I fully agree its Ok as a compromise for the clubs. They do a lot of good on their own. My issue isn't with the clubs its with some club members who are not contributing what they should to climbing and many non club non BMC members. This is in the context of people moaning about the BMC and asking if we need Sport England money or to recruit indoor climbers. The bigger scandal is how mean too many climbers are.
1
 Jim Hamilton 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:


> The main cost to the BMC is public liability insurance, which covers all members and which is very important to clubs - they could get sued by people on meets, using huts etc. There was a time when the per-capita cost, plus such things as the costs of admin and sending out Summit, was less than the membership fee, and the clubs refused to an accept an increase. This is not the case anymore.

Does that insurance cover the club, or individuals in the club? Is there any difference in the way the insurance operates from that provided under a home insurance policy?
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
> Given that choice, most would I suspect decide not to join at all. Especially those who join a club, pay their subs, and are never otherwise heard of from one year to the next. Even if £13.50 were "pretty much at cost" (and I doubt that), then it still provides greater income than £0.00, as well as boosting membership numbers which must help with any negotiations etc.

I have to agree. My club has circa 150 members. The 'active' membersip is probably less than 30 and I reckon only a few of those would join the BMC. Being generous we could say 15 would join, so 10 percent, How would it help the BMC in negotiations if it claimed to represent a membersip of ten percent its current size?
Post edited at 12:31
 Chris the Tall 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Jim Hamilton:

Sorry, can't you a definite answer on either question, but not everyone has a home insurance policy - or at least the club doesn't want the hassle of checking hundreds of different policies to ensure that everyone is adequately covered.

What I do know is every club (in the working group) felt that it was essential they had PL insurance, and that the BMC could get a much better per-capita rate than even the largest club. In a few cases, you got the impression it was the only reason they affiliated to the BMC, and would leave if they could get the insurance cheaper.
 Chris the Tall 30 Sep 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> A bit a night mare for small clubs to manage, though.

You see, I thought the BMC might be able to offer some sort of membership management service to the clubs, as well as giving clubs an opportunity to attract new members - a club could offer membership to BMC member for £7 rather than £20 for example.
 Chris the Tall 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

I think you and I agree (for once) on the notion that you should be a BMC member, not for the discounts or the insurance, but because it's the right thing to do. But what we have to remember is that this is not a universal view, and is actually quite novel. Until the "Climb it, Walk it, Protect it" campaign started about 10 years ago, all the BMC ads I could find were to do with selling insurance, and membership was merely a prerequisite for that.

And that is my problem with "The British Mountaineering Council" - it's doesn't imply a campaigning pressure group, it doesn't say "Join us if you want to protect Stanage". Once you've joined, read a few copies of Summit etc, then the name become irrelevant, just an acronym. Join for the benefits, stay for the access ! It will be interesting to see whether the CTC gets a big boost in membership since it's change to CyclingUK.

As to the clubs, there was a feeling of resentment over a lack of choice over supporting what the BMC does. It was a bit like the EU really - you could list all the things the organisation does, but it's easier to concentrate on the big figure on the cheque and the fact you had only limited control over it. They would point out that lots of climbers choose not to support the BMC, so why should their members be forced to. I do wonder if it would be better if club members got all 4 issues of Summit, rather than just 1, but then that reduces the incentive to upgrade to full membership.

Like the name, there is no easy answer
 FreshSlate 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Thanks Chris, that's helpful. So the main cost is public liability insurance. I wonder if the BMC are able to calculate the per capita cost of this in the pool of club members... However it is more likely they extrapolate from the total PL costs divided by total membership however.

As you mention, a lot of club members are inactive, so you'd figure that would reduce costs over the pool. So each club members gets a single summit issue?

 Jim Hamilton 30 Sep 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> What I do know is every club (in the working group) felt that it was essential they had PL insurance, and that the BMC could get a much better per-capita rate than even the largest club. In a few cases, you got the impression it was the only reason they affiliated to the BMC, and would leave if they could get the insurance cheaper.

just wondering with your hut use example, whether clubs possibly think they are covered for something they may not be. The wording on the BMC website reads like liability cover for the individual, which may be duplicated, rather than cover for the club. So for example if a club book a venue and if say someone left taps on causing extensive water damage, but no individual can be found responsible, is it possible that the venue owners could come after any club assets, and would the BMC policy cover the club?
 RupertD 01 Oct 2016
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
> So for example if a club book a venue and if say someone left taps on causing extensive water damage, but no individual can be found responsible, is it possible that the venue owners could come after any club assets, and would the BMC policy cover the club?

The BMC insurance covers you for "mountaineering activities." Leaving a tap on is unlikely to be considered one of them.

Policy summary is here: http://www.bmc-insurance-centre.co.uk/uploads/documents/bmc-insurance-centr...
Post edited at 10:48
 Jim Hamilton 01 Oct 2016
In reply to RupertD:

Thank you for posting the link, together with confirmation that what it covers is not quite what club members might think it covers ("using huts etc.").
 RupertD 01 Oct 2016
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
Sorry, that's wrong document, the clubs version is here and the covered activities are wider than in the individual policy:

http://www.bmc-insurance-centre.co.uk/uploads/documents/bmc-insurance-centr...
Post edited at 12:02

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...