UKC

Just received an email from the Organisation Formerly Known as the BMC announcing they are rebranding to Climb Britain.

Obviously my first thought was 'urgh!', but on reflection that might just be my usual reaction to change.

It does seem a bit more all-encompassing than referencing Mountaineering.

I like the bit in the email where the ad agency found that “BMC members all climb stuff”. Well yes.

In reply to net:


My reaction too

In reply to net:

I think it's a shame after the time and effort they've gone to recently to try to make non-climbing hillwalkers feel included.

I wonder who's going to pay for the significant costs involved?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Yes it does feel rather out of step with that

In reply to net:

"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.
We asked for help from Sport England to solve our dilemma. Could we keep our existing name, yet still reach out to the new generations discovering climbing and hill walking? ..... After a nine-month independent study, sports marketing specialists b-focused and design agency Thinkfarm found the answer.

“BMC members all climb stuff,” they reported back. "

A 9 month independent study!! I wasn't sure if it was a spoof at first. Advisors such as "b-focused" and "Thinkfarm" sound like an episode of The Thick of it. Ahh well, good to know my subs are being used wisely

In reply to net:

First thought: "Urgh"
Second thought: "Sounds like a cheesy tourism company".
Third thought: "Why do Wales have a name separate from the 'Britain' umbrella?" (I expect there's a reason but seems odd..)

In reply to net:

I agree with the name and the decision making process, but I find the logo to be horrid. The font for 'climb' is terrible (the phrase "don't be so open-minded that your brain leaks out" springs to mind).
I find the mountain logo to be cliche as well - every man and his dog with anything to do with the outdoors has the 2-3 peaks silhouette as their logo. The original one was original (it was probably among the first?), this one just feels boring, and can't even really be called a homage to the old as for some reason they changed the slope angle (it looked too easy before?)

In reply to Slarti B:

Very 'W1A' or '2012.

I am sure that Siobhan from 'Perfect Curve' would have offered plenty of valuable input.

In reply to net:

Aargh, the font! The font!

In reply to Slarti B:

BMC: 'What should we be called'?
Sport England: 'We feel nonsensical combinations of words, ideally a descriptive noun followed by a geographic noun, work best as we seek to unify all sports bodies into one single, amorphous corporate enterprise. Also, do you mind using the GB team colours from now on?'
BMC: Got it.

In reply to net:
It seems like they are taking a step back.
Going from a Mountain to a Boulder (or mole hill)...

When I was younger, I remember mountaineering sounding scary, exciting and something to aim for.
I joined the Mountaineering of Bury, yes I was going to be a mountaineer..
I climbed at the massive and scary crags of Harcles Hill and Deeply Vale, with regular sessions at the Oldham wall.
I read about climbing expeditions in the Alps and Himalayas, thinking maybe one day I'll go there.
I eventually went to the Alps with my BMC membership and insurance to hand.

Climb Britain, sounds less adventurous, more like new chain of bouldering walls.

I wonder if I can join the American Alpine Association, at least they still have an impressive name


Just read the email in detail
"the Mountaineering Council of Scotland – has indicated its intention to rebrand as Mountaineering Scotland."

Why can't it have been Mountaineering Britain (or actually Mountaineering England, as Scotland and Wales have their own identities, surely NI and the others will want theirs).
Damn I'm joining Mountaineering Scotland, at least they haven't gone all SnapChat and sold their souls

In reply to net:
Thinkfarm? Really?

on reflection, it's all a bot olympic-y, isn't it?

In reply to net:

Since joining the AAC I have been trying to remember to cancel my BMC direct debit so this is a good reminder. Although CAF membership looks even more attractive than AAC for me due to lower hut prices and better insurance. Its also worth noting that the new name does not fit in with the naming of other national mountaineering organizations in Europe.

In reply to net:

Thank goodness for the rebranding. I was starting to get all confused why the British Mountaineering council had entered a team into this years Tour de France.

In reply to net:
I am disappointed with the name change, The British Mountaineering Council had an air of tradition and history.

Climb Britain does indeed sound a bit like its orientated to the Olympic pitch, and the logo seems to suggest this too...

In reply to net:
"The BMC's presence in Wales will become Climb Cymru."

Is this a bad joke? Climb Cymru?

I'm not paying a membership fee to entertain shit like this.

"After a nine-month independent study, sports marketing specialists b-focused and design agency Thinkfarm found the answer."

Load of bollocks. Were they the same ones that reccommended the Post Office changed their name too?

In reply to net:

BMC is the brand. It includes everyone who loves mountains. It's not just climbers. When I think outdoor insurance I think BMC, I wouldn't think 'Climb Britain'. And agree with others - definitely Olympic pitch based, but also why Britain? With Scotland looking to seperate post Brexit and Wales having it's own identify with Climb Cymru. All about Team GB and Olympic motivated. And don't get me started on speed climbing...

It's just naff - there was no reason to change it and they've been consistently building up a brand for the last 72 years that people actually trust, only to throw it away on the advice of over-paid 'consultants'.

In reply to net:

What was wrong with the old name? "‘Mountaineering Council’ doesn’t quite cut it these days" sounds like a flakey reason if I'd ever heard one. Did it put people off or something? Very much agree with Stuart Wildman's post.

In reply to SiWood:

actually this is genius, as the BMC (mountaineering one, not Swiss bike makers!) can now appeal to road bikers too (which most of us climbing in our forties have now become!).

In reply to Bryn_F:


Shouldn't it be Dringo Cymru anyway?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

You'd think so, perhaps that will require a further 9 months of circle jerking.

In reply to joe.wahab:

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 Ben1983:




Sport England: Not so fast, we can't just tell you to change your name! But we would suggest you appoint our preferred consultants on a nine month study so they can tell you to change your name.

In reply to net:

Mine too. But on reflection, still "urgh!".

In reply to net:

Typical rebranding - that shows scant regard to the history of the organisation - and is not particularly well thought out. British Climbing would actually have sounded better -- particularly as someone else had already come up with 'UK Climbing'

The Cyclists Touring Club ( CTC) had a bit of a staid, fuddy duddy image, and has now been rebranded quite successfully as Cycling UK, in an affort to appeal to the wider non competitive cycling public of all ages.

In reply to net:

I don't mind "Climb" (I climb hills as well as crags), but I don't climb countries. What would have been wrong with "British Climbing Council". "Climb Britain" is horrible, trendy bollocks.

In reply to net:

Who designed the logo!!!!!

In reply to Robert Durran:

And will seem really dated very quickly. Whereas BMC as a shorthand stands the test of time IMO.

In reply to JayPee630:


Obvoiusly. A three letter abreviation needs... three letters.

In reply to Stuart Wildman:

Mountaineering Ireland, formerly the Mountaineering Council of Ireland, is the body for the whole of Ireland not just the Republic of Ireland.

In reply to Slarti B:


A very comprehensively argued, literate analysis.

Innit.

And yes, very 'Perfect Curve'. Nine months to come up with that?

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

Wales have a separate identity because the Welsh Assembly won't give any funding to an England based British organisation!

In reply to net:

Aah it's just an April Fool's! Oh wait...

In reply to digby:
I genuinely thought this was a joke. I'm not sure how you can take climb Britain seriously as an advocacy group, or as a body representing hill walkers. Although as someone above mentioned, perhaps the new name could get a few cyclists on board.

The fact there is a need for an article called "What does Climb Britain mean for walkers" says it all. If you don't think you're alienating them why post an article 'we're not alienating you... here's a 1,000 words on why you 'climb' not 'walk''.

In terms of the argument 'the name is old, time to move on'. Coca-Cola has been called Coca-Cola since 1888, this fact hardly stopped it becoming a household name, and 'Climb Britain' will certainly date much more quickly than the BMC.

In reply to Punter S Thompson:


Sorry to break this to you Fergus, but Mountaineering Ireland has now been further rebranded as Mount Mickey.

... Blame the Good Friday Agreement and Brexit.

P.S. You're barred from the ODG.

In reply to net:
I wonder whether the average hill walker would identify with Climb Britain. Do hillwalkers think of themselves as people who 'climb' things or who 'walk' and 'scramble'? I don't know. It's a bit sad though that they felt identifying with climbing more important than identifying with mountaineering (which to me suggests climbing something bigger and more adventurous though not necessarily harder, as well as a more all-encompassing activity). A sign of the times, with a lot of people hardly making it past the climbing wall (though I suspect many of them will never be interested anyway in the CB or the BMC or whatever they want to call themselves).

Also, it sounds too similar to my mate's company Climb Europe - which is an online guide book shop.

While CB is short for an overrated route on Scafell

In reply to net:

so we've gone from a name which described what it was..a national body representing climbers and hill walkers...to an expensively rebranded name sounding like...what? a climbing wall? a magazine? an outdoor activities centre? who can tell? it's like those idiotic councils who rebrand libraries as 'Explore!' or sports centres as 'Energise!' in the belief they will sound more exciting and draw people in. Only the actual result is nobody can figure out how to find the bleeding library any more. Oh, and we've thrown a shed load of cash at a marketing company to come up with this.

In reply to net:

What an absolutely shit idea but not quite as shit as paying some idiot branding firm to come up with it, c'mon the former BMC how much did these two words cost us?

In reply to pebbles:
Completely agree. Horrible change.

In reply to net:

I would say mountaineering covers many hill activities, climbing is just climbing. A very stupid move unless they plan to be very climbing and crag specific in the future.

It sounds like something new labour would have rebranded, perhaps a find a band to sing a song at the big announcement, union jack fluttering in the background...

In reply to net:

I must be one of the few that thinks it sounds more representative than BMC, which sounded like it was just mountaineering ( ropes and snow and Everest ), rather than the whole gamut of upward ascent of hills and outcrops and plywood. The modal person on the Docklands light railway is more likely to guess what the majority of folks might do with this moniker than the older one, imho.

I think we've heard before that competition climbing actually subsidises to some extent the other activities, or at least is not negative in terms of financial.

As I am not a member any more and have hardly climbed recently perhaps this gives me a different perspective , but also may be one with less weight to it.

In reply to net:

Anyone remember when PwC rebranded itself as "Monday".

££££ and months spent on consultants, whereas all they had to do was buy a round in a pub and 11 blokes would have told them it was shit.

British Marine Federation - rebranded last year to British Marine

British Cycling Federation - rebranded last year (or two) to British Cycling

British Mountaineering Council rebranded this year to Climb Britain. They must have seen something the others didn't....

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


"11 blokes" is hardly representative of the mountain-related activities population though eh?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
I disagree with that. Hill walkers climb hills, thus they are included in "Climb Britain" but not "British Mountaineering Council".

I know many people that have "climbed" Snowdon and Scafell Pike and Pen Y Gent and other such mountains/Hills. We all know that means they walked up it, and that's a totally valid use of the term. To climb is to go up and walking up a hill counts as a climb. The Tour de France just finished, they climb hills on bicycles. So I think it is inclusive. As rock climbers we tend to think you have to be rock climbing or ice climbing or mountaineering to be qualified to use the term "climb" but this is elitist nonsense. Walking up a hill is climbing. In fact, a great deal of mountaineering is just walking.

In reply to net:

Have you ever had the feeling you've chosen the wrong career?
I should have gone into marketing, I'm so full of shit I'd be a multi£££millionaire by now

In reply to neilwiltshire:
I disagree with that. Hill walkers climb hills, thus they are included in "Climb Britain" but not "British Mountaineering Council".

I think thats wishful thinking. I cant think of any hill walkers or bikers I know who would describe what they go out doing as climbing. they go walking or biking.

In reply to Punter S Thompson:
So Scotland and Ireland have proper names and we're left to be the embarrassing dad trying to be down with the kids.

In reply to neilwiltshire:

In the olde dayes when I walked up hills but didn't climb up crags I would never have described what I did as climbing, and corrected people who thought that it was.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
"corrected people who thought that it was"


Like I said, elitist nonsense. Let people call it whatever they want. What's the problem?


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+climb

In reply to net:
Not impressed, sounds cheap and tacky, name change for the sake of name change, do we have a jobsworth working in the Bmc!

In reply to net:

I did endeavour to get Thinkfarm to engage with the forums, so we'd have a better idea of the methodology, but they hid behind the BMC statements. Understandable, I guess but it would be nice for them to realise what happens when their ideas get released into the wild.

In reply to neilwiltshire:

It's not "elitist nonsense", it's simply how the language is used. If you tell someone you're a climber they'll think you climb rocks using ropes, not that you've walked up Snowdon or even Ben Nevis. My mountaineering club (that's what we call ourselves) has both walkers and climbers in it, and we all understand what those terms mean without it implying that one group is superior to the other.

"We all climb" is a pathetic justification. Window cleaners climb ladders, we climb the stairs to bed, where would you stop?

This seems very much like change for change's sake, and the typical outcome of an expensive consultancy exercise. It's no comfort that the BMC didn't pay for it, we paid for it from our taxes.

In reply to net:

Out of mild interest, what does this sort of consultancy cost? Someone must have a rough idea. I'm assuming when they says it takes nine months that isn't a team of people full time....

In reply to Matt Vigg:

£25,000 quoted by Dave Turnbull

In reply to davegs:


Absolutely shocking. Sorry, revolting.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
That is an absolutely appalling sum of money to spend/waste no matter where it came from.

In reply to davegs:


That could have funded some kid to train full time for the Olympics for a year!

In reply to Fiskavaig:

Why was the membership not consulted on this name change?

In reply to davegs:

TBH, that's not as much as I expected. Still it's a stupid waste of money, I wonder if these re-branding types take themselves seriously or if they just burst out laughing as soon as they're out of sight. And then go to the pub of course.

In reply to net:

I fully expect this decision to be reviewed and the membership consulted. They may feel committed to the change now, but they're risking a lot more by blindly continuing.

The idea that this is an old person vs. young person thing is rubbish. I've talked to loads of people about this change and everyone has agreed that it's at best naff and at worst taken the soul out of something they love.

We need to embrace all parts of the BMC, not just invent a new logo with the colours of the GB climbing team and a font that looks like an indoor wall. Are the BMC embarrassed by their mountain roots?

In reply to net:

I tend to think that any organisation or business that thinks its fortunes will be magically transformed by a bit of rebranding is missing the point that some more fundamental flaws exist. Of course, the bullshit peddlers in design agencies and think tanks will say otherwise........ for a hefty fee. A crap car is still crap even with a respray. If the BMC has not been achieving its goals of eg connecting with new markets , I don't think a new logo will make a difference.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:


Personally I don't think its the BMC's role to "connect with new markets". The BMC's role as far as I'm concerned is to represent its members.

In reply to GrahamD:

Though, to play devil's advocate, there won't be any members if it can't attract new ones. That said, are there figures that show the BMC's membership is declining?

In reply to whenry:


I would have said its the other way round. If new mmbers aren't attracted too the BMC then it will decline. But the raison d'etre of the BMC shouldn't be to be 'corporate' and to see growth in itself as being a goal.

In reply to Howard J:

What I'm saying is, somebody is entirely entitled to say they "climbed Snowdon" if they walked up it. I haven't suggested any of these people are running around telling people they are "climbers". If someone told you they climbed Snowdon having walked up the miners track and you said to them "no you didn't" that is elitist nonsense.

Also, thanks for further illustrating my point about the definition of the word.

In reply to GrahamD:


But by growing its membership the BMC grows the resources it has to represent and support its members.

In reply to net:
Hey guys

It would be good if we could keep this discussion all in one thread. The old BMC thread was auto archived yesterday (probably due to its length although I'm looking into it). If you can now move this over to the new thread here: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=646638

Cheers

In reply to Postmanpat:

Not sure to what extent the needs of access negotiation and technical comittees goes up with membership (which I would argue are the core functions of the BMC, along with supporting the national club network).

All actively attracting new members does is potentially diversify the interests they are trying to represent by attracting different demographics and increases the need to fuel the recruitment / advertiseing machine.

In reply to Slarti B:



Sport England
Climb Britain

You don't need to be a genius to see the the common pattern. Personally I think Climb Britain sounds too commercial. I have a friend whose climbing company is called Climb South West.

In reply to net:

How about widening the membership,with people from other adventure sports?
The British Adventure Sport Association? B A S A ? Easy to remember. Bring it on.

In reply to Postmanpat:


What resources are needed? Mainly access isn't it, and I would think that's mostly a fixed cost. But we can all guess, and I've as little clue as anybody really, it would be interesting to know where the desire to grow comes from. Maybe it's all explained on the BMC website? I think my concern is that things are being driven from the outside and not being done in the interest of existing members. I think a fair few people on here share that concern.

In reply to GrahamD:

>
That's exactly the point. The needs don't rise much but the resources to meet them go up!!


That is a risk, but since the remit of the BMC us to support the broad climbing/mountaineering community it should surely represent varied interests?

As I've said elsewhere, I suspect much of the whining about the name is really displaced criticism of the changes in the climbing community and of the role of the BMC in those changes.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Why should we "guess" when the aims, activities, resources and financial statements of the BMC are all on the website?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Because we live in a post-factual era where feelings are what matters, and if people feel that the BMC are an unelected bureaucracy who only care about retrobolting classic trad routes because of political correctness and winning Olympic medals to make money then why should they bother checking the facts before throwing their toys out of the pram?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Guess what resources are needed.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Well, you can find out what resources there are and how they are deployed on the website. It doesn't seem to to me to require a gargantuan insight to work out that a bit more money might allow for a few more activities to be undertaken -training courses, sponsored expeditions, crags purchased, quicker access agreements or the myriad other things the BMC undertakes.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I was trying to explain people concerns to you. You haven't really explained the sums and what we'll gain by growing, other than a vague statement. Maybe it's a guess?

In reply to Postmanpat:


I doubt the resources to meet the core functions go up. I suspect all that happens is that more resources are needed to cover the new found membership interest diversity and to perpetuate the recruitment drive.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Why do they need explaining? If the BMC has more money it can do more of what it does or do what it does more effectively.

The objection to this is that the new members might have different requirements. I suspect that this is behind much of the criticism: that the BMC is trying to attract indoor climbers and competition climbers and will divert resources to them at the expence of others. I'd like to see the evidence for this.

In reply to whenry:


Someone (Dave Turnbull?) suggested that there was a problem with insufficient under 25s. But the figures used to back this up seemed to contradict the claim.

In reply to neilwiltshire:

I quite agree that "climb" to describe walking up Snowdon is perfectly correct, and this is the justification put forward by the brand consultants. However in the outdoors context, within the outdoor community in particular but also outside it, its primary meaning is doing stuff with ropes (also encompassing bouldering and soloing of course).

This is demonstrated by the fact that the BMC feels it necessary to publish a lengthy article to explain to hillwalkers that "climb" does in fact still include them, and even in that piece uses "climbers" and "climbing" to mean the stuff with ropes. It's very first words are "Climbers are not the only people who climb mountains." The terms crop up elsewhere in the news releases, where they are clearly intended to have the same meaning.

The brand "Climb Britain" requires us to set aside this primary meaning and expects us to understand the term more widely. That isn't incorrect use of language, but it is poor branding. Good branding presents a clear strong message which doesn't have to be reinterpreted. I think "British Mountaineering Council" did that.

I can't immediately suggest an alternative to "mountaineering" if that is now seen as no longer encompassing all the aspects of the sport, but give me 9 months and 25 grand and I'll come up with something.

In reply to Howard J:
"Mountain Sports" is more direct and perhaps more inclusive than "Mountaineering" though I'm entirely happy with the latter


What about "Mountain Sports Britannia" as this refers not to any political entity but an ancient regional designation?


I reckon it's worth more than the fee paid to the nincompoops who came up with "Climb Britain" and as such I claim my prize

In reply to net:

To be honest this rebrand is pretty low in the list of things that are important to me.

I've climbed, mountain biked and hill walked for 20 years yet still don't think of myself as a mountaineer or really having done much actual mountaineering (which I consider to be in snow up high somewhere).
More or less I consider myself a 'climber' and the rebrand seems fine to me.

In reply to net:

I think that rebranding to be more appealing to younger people is a good idea. Taking this further I think that "Summit" magazine also needs rebranding. In my opinion a much more edgy title which would appeal to younger people and catches the Zeitgeist of the post-ironic era is "Up Yours"

In reply to Howard J:

Except that BMC is not a clear distinct brand.

Cycle team, computer software,and the british milers club.

BMC fails completely as a distinct identity.In reality its rubbish.

In reply to net:

If it's going to be 're-branded' then surely British Climbers would be a lot better, because at least it then tells us what it is.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


The majority of BMC members who are not climbers (people who climb mountains, but don't go climbing on mountains) would be justifiably unhappy.

In reply to Franco Cookson:


Routes?...

In reply to andrewmcleod:


Then we'd have to call it British Mountaineers, or more vaguely, Mountaineering, and then add something like Association to make it clearer what it was. Or, 'Council'. Oops.

In reply to neilh:




'The BMC' is completely distinctive in context. Like all trademarks it only has to be distinctive in the relevant field. It also has a long history of association with climbing and has a very obviously mountain-related logo.

Nobody to whom it matters is really going to confuse it with anything else.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
Upto a point yes, and I am well aware of the legal niceties on trade marks etc.

That misses the point. Every time I look at a BMC bike I think " wtf". I am sure other people involved in sport etc must think the same.

Its not good, unless you are so focused on your own interest, and I like to think that most people are not.

You need a distinct identity, and it is not when it clashes so blatantly with another one which is sport related.

Even more so when you are trying to reach out to others, you do not want to be explaining the difference.

In reply to neilh:


Seriously? I should have thought most people are able to separate ideas according to the context.

In reply to Howard J:

From a branding identity perspective you should not have to do that in the first place, ie think is it climbing or is it bikes( they are after all both sports related).

If you are having to do this, then its is 100% not distinct.

Too often people close to the subject cannot often see what is obvious or confusing to other people.

I would hope that the branding agency's brief included looking at areas where the existing name BMC did this.Certainly I would expect them to say these sort of things, and they would be pretty rubbish not to point it out.

In reply to:

I posted this on the other thread and will reply, when possible to posts there, not here:

I'm on the exec of the BMC and I will try and answer some points as best I can from a personal point of view. Like Rob Greenwood I voted in favour, but also like Rob (and the rest of the exec) I am a volunteer and a full subs paying member of the BMC. I will try and address some issues but I'm doing this at the same time as working in my day job in which I have some deadlines this afternoon. If my replies appear terse its because I'm trying to type fast.

Firstly, there's no conspiracy or ulterior motives. We're not getting paid for the rebrand, we were not put up to it by Sport England.

This is not intended to be a move away from core values. The BMC is failing to reach a tranche of climbers, we thought the name change would assist. Many climbers, hill walkers, boulderers, etc have never been anywhere near a mountain. The BMC as an acronym is not well known. The rebrand is not intended to be a catch all solution to any problem. We think the rebrand will help make the organisation more effective in the future at remaining relevant to all hillwalkers, climbers and mountaineers of all disciplines and therefore better placed to be influential in the wider world for the purposes of representing the needs of all members, climbers, mountaineers, and hillwalkers.

The exec and the national council are all volunteer members elected to represent and act on behalf of the members. We are not corporate stooges intent on the commercialisation of the BMC. We are not doing this for reward unless you count the priceless enjoyment to be had from being insulted (joke).

Nor are we on a power trip. The suggestion vastly overestimates the enjoyment received from sitting in a small room in manchester on a Tuesday night at half ten going through last quarter's finance reports whilst trying to persuade Dave Turnbull to turn the aircon down. We sometimes get a chocolate biscuit though.

We were not swayed by fancy marketing hype. At least I wasn't. I rolled my eyes at the name b-focussed like the rest of you. But their primary aim was not to change the BMC, instead to prepare it for the future.

We (the exec) are not in thrall to the Olympics. But the Olympics will happen. Climbing will be in the Olympics in 2020. A team will be entered. As a country we stand a decent chance at a medal (no pressure Shauna). Any Olympic climbing organisation will be asked by the press and government to comment on climbing. It will be asked for its opinion. The press and the government don’t see the tensions in the climbing community. They see it as a whole. If the BMC is not the go-to organisation for all things climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering, including the Olympics, it will lose influence. That will damage its ability to campaign in all aspects including access. This is my opinion, not that of the BMC.

In hindsight we should have consulted more widely. There was some concern that widespread public knowledge would prejudice any ability to rebrand due to trademark and domain name sniping. We are currently discussing the best way forwards which will involve some further consultation with the National Council (necessary as they voted for the change) and the National Council with the members. This is necessarily being done by email when most people are at work. I was answering emails on Tuesday as I went into and came out of court, then later on from a hospital. It's not super fast. We are not a team sat behind a desk in BMC HQ drinking coffee and gloating about our coup.

The Climb Britain name is inevitably a compromise. Some names were not available for various commercial reasons such as having been previously registered. Lets face it, it probably had to be some combination of climb/climbing/mountaineer(ing) etc along with a geographical denominator. Climb Britain was considered the best option.

Pretty much every point raised in social media has been considered over the months. The rebrand was our considered conclusion.

It took 9 months from start to finish to agree to the rebrand because that's how long it takes to get 30 volunteers to discuss and agree. It didn't take 9 months to rearrange the word "britain" and the word "climb" into "Climb Britain.”

I will try and answer any other points when possible.

Rupert Davies

In reply to RupertD:

Thank you, that is the best response from any BMC person so far.

In reply to RupertD:

Hi Rupert,

Thank you for taking the time to write what seems the most honest reply yet on behalf of the BMC. I have just one question, which is why the 'Climb Britain' brand couldn't be a subsidary of the BMC, rather than subsuming it entirely? Presumably since that's basically what Mountaineering Scotland and ClimbScotland have done, it's a good idea - and would seem to make everyone happy.

In reply to RupertD:

Thank you Rupert.

Can you explain the creative thinking behind the hideous new logo please?

D.

In reply to RupertD:

In hindsight we should have consulted more widely.

y'don't say?

And I'll ask again. Is this change irreversible? IF there is significant opposition from the wider membership, is a rethink, or a pause in the brand roll out possible whilst all options are reconsidered?

In reply to toad:




Apologies, I thought I had covered this above. We are currently considering the options, which will likely involve a wider consultation with the members. I can't be more specific for the reasons I set out above, the email conversations are happening slowly as we are all at work.

In reply to GrahamD:

I totally agree. I just thought a phrase which I made up like'connecting with new markets', was the sort o corporate bollo# that gets trotted out. As you suggest, a new logo etc will not help them represent the membership any more effectively.

BMC update:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/climb-britain-update-from-the-bmc

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Progress!

In reply to whenry:


No. They are (were?) increasing before the re-brand proposals. So 'engagement' from 'stakeholders' in an 'ongoing time-frame' with 'participant buy-in' would seem to be have been 'optimised' without a 'paradigm shift' in 'outward facing vision and presence'.

In reply to Martin McKenna - Rockfax:




How do we do that if the request is buried half way down a 200 post thread? Is there no way of flagging or merging threads when you you finish up with 3 or 4 parallels?

In reply to RupertD:

As someone who has also sat in those Burton Road offices until dead late:


Rupert; that is simply bollocks. Who on earth gave you that wafflespeak to post? Re-branding has never, ever made an organisation more effective - organisational change does that. Didn't they tell you?


Top man! But I thought the £25k had already bought you consultation.......

>: 'We are currently discussing the best way forwards which will involve some further consultation with the National Council (necessary as they voted for the change) and the National Council with the members.

Top man! And the mechanism for that consultation is.....?

In reply to Andy Say:


"We need to hire more brand consultants immediately."

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Really! Do you think that? Reads to me like the same old party line. Bullsh1t and lies, don't worry your pretty little heads all you ordinary people!

In reply to Andy Say:


Agree with that, this happens on all the other forums I go on.

In reply to Andy Say:



I made it up. It's a clunky sentence. We want to attract climbers/hill walkers etc that are put off by the current name or don't think it includes them.


Not with the members.



Asking them. See Dave's post above.

In reply to RupertD:



Rupert, That's not just 'clunky' it is essentially 'meaning-lite'. I would re-assert my original statement that it is 'bollocks'.



And how the bloody hell do you seek to re-brand the BRITISH MOUNTAINEERING COUNCIL by consulting with folks who are not members? And who are those folks?


So. It's a done deal. But it's not a done deal. The British Mountaineering Council National Council has decided on a course of action. But, given the furore created by the lack of consultation, the BMC NatCo might re-consider. Is that fair?

In reply to Andy Say:

Disagree, but I restated the aims in different terms in my last post.


Don't follow. The proposal is to consult the members.

These are the proposed next steps (lifted from Dave's post).

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

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

In reply to RupertD:


Rupert, well that is all good but, you must admit, a bit 'horse before cart'? It might have been good to do a bit of this BEFORE an announcement?

And I have posted elsewhere the question; why is the GB Climbing Team (including Scotland and Ireland?) a factor in this? Can't they just turn up to area meetings as individual members?

In reply to RupertD:


What data have you got that climbers are put off by the name? Most of the people I have climbed with over the years were not BMC members, but as far as I'm aware it wasn't the name that put them off. Are you trying to solve the wrong problem?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Not necessarily. What it does now and what it does in future might not be the same. Depends to some extent on the demographic of the membership I would think. And are the current agenda of the BMC and the agenda of Sport England the same? If they're not, involvement of Sport England could be detrimental to the BMC, from the perspective of it's current membership.

In reply to Andy Say:
>> And I have posted elsewhere the question; why is the GB Climbing Team (including Scotland and Ireland?) a factor in this? Can't they just turn up to area meetings as individual members?

Not sure; Team / squad members can turn up should they wish. Maybe because in the original thread there were several assertions that the emphasis of the BMC was moving more towards comps / indoors and this was seen by many posters as a bad thing.
Clearly i'm biased (although i did start my outdoor interests in moutaineering of the big snowy thing variety (and caving, but we cant all be perfect), but maybe its time the BMC . Climb britain looked more to indoor climbing / comps - its the fastest growing area of the sport, and the biggest single event the BMC stages every year is a comp.........
Ian Walton
Chair, comps committee.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

>
Which is pretty much what I covered in my second para. If there is no "ne demogrpahic or interist group" then more members equals more funds to meet existing activities
And if there is a new demographic of climber/mountaineers it is the BMC's role to support them so they should be encouraged to join.

In reply to RupertD:


That isn't consulting the members, that's consulting a small subset of members who can get to area meetings

In reply to Ian W:

... , but maybe its time the BMC . Climb britain looked more to indoor climbing / comps - its the fastest growing area of the sport,

Out of curiosity, how many climbers have competed in competitions this year? I read somewhere recently on the BMC website that it was about 2000? If that's about right, then that's less than 1% of the people that the BMC purports to represent. I'm not saying the BMC should support more competitions - except Olympics, but that a different issue - but I don't believe it should dominate too much of the BMCs thinking.


Sorry, but that's a bit of a red herring since non-competive climbing doesn't involve staged 'events'!

In reply to toad:


Oh FFS. If there's the huge level of grassroots anger that people seem to think there is and not just quite a lot of "meh" and a few people egging each other on to ever greater levels of outrage on an internet forum then surely a few of the aggrieved members are going to be able to find the time to get to an area meeting?

In reply to Marek:

its a bit less than 2k, but that is only in bmc organised comps. There are something over 450 walls in the uk, most of whom have boulder comps / leagues, mostly attracting a hundred or so competitors (some more, some less). There will a lot of overlap between comps (same people attending >1 comp, but still, there are a couple of tens of thousands of people involved.........and its not comps per se but the indoor climbers the BMC / CB needs to target.

In reply to Marek:
orry, but that's a bit of a red herring since non-competive climbing doesn't involve staged 'events'!

wilton fest, trem fest, northumberland thing at belford, other fests i cant remember, AGM, area meetings.............why is it a red herring?

In reply to Ian W:
Agreed, there's lots of overlap - I've done the "first one to fail on a route buys the beer" thing, but I don't think that make me into a competition climber.

In reply to RupertD:

The joys of volunteering for an organisation where most members can't be bothered to be active summed up nicely. Many thanks for your work.

In reply to Ian W:



Not really aware of 'fests' and I definitely don't consider meetings to be climbing! Perhaps cos I've never been a club member.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

"We accept the need for wider debate so we’re proposing a period of active engagement in which we will get people together to discuss the issues; this will be done via the next set of Area meetings together with some specific gatherings of groups such as clubs and the GB Climbing Team if there is interest or demand."

How many people are in the GB Climbing Team?
How many BMC members are there...?

Isn't that statement a tacit admission that this is about promoting a GB competitive sport climbing team?

In reply to captain paranoia:





If you think that this solely about promoting the team, you are living up to your username! Promoting the GB Climbing team, and being able to use the promotion attracted by the GB Climbing Team for the benefit of the whole organisation is of course part of this!!! But this is about way, way more than the team itself. Its about trying to realign with a rapidly changing set of participation in the sport / pastime / hobby of climbing / mountaineering, and making the BMC relevant for the next 70 years as well as the last 70.
Competition climbing is here to stay, Olympic inclusion is on the cards, and the BMC can either move with the times, or stay in the past.

In reply to Marek:


I was only referring to organised comps, not just the inevitable thoughts of who gets a round in............although i'm sure there are occasions where the thought of having to put hand in pocket in the pub has magically increased standards............

In reply to RupertD:

Appreciate the post Ru. Unfortunately, I'm not sure people will actually read what what the post actually says, just what they want it to/think it says.

As someone who was in the "outraged" camp, I'm now ambivalent and controversially quite liked the Climb Britain logo in white in the corner of the photo on the BMC press release.

In reply to Ian W:


I seem to remember forty years the late great Mac(Naught-Davis) the Belly complaining that the BMC sat around discussing indoor climbing walls whilst the Japanese sent a 100 (?) expeditions to the the Himalayas,so it's hardly a new debate. He had a point but time has surely proved him wrong? Indoor walls have made a massive contribution to climbing, both in standards, numbers participating and fun that's been had.

The BMC should surely, as you imply, embrace all aspects of climbing and mountaineering.

In reply to Postmanpat:

That's what the bmc has already done! Bmc ambassadors, bmc tv, all the social media they pump out - it does exactly that and does it very well.

Most of us dabble in most or all parts of climbing and mountaineering. I walk in the lakes, alps, climb trad, sport, multipitch, have done a fair few alpine routes, winter climb, boulder, lead and boulder indoors. I've even joined in with a few comps. The bmc needs to promote ALL of this (as it has been doing), for the next 70 years as you correctly point out. Climb Britain is a movement that concerns itself only with a couple of aspects of the above list of activities and will only be relevant for a decade or so. What then?

It's shortsighted, without a clear aim and does nothing to promote all the other aspects of the bmc.

In reply to Franco Cookson:


It's just a name change, not a movement

In reply to Franco Cookson:


Why do you assert this with such confidence?

In reply to Marek:

So how about saying that there are more volunteers involved with comps than any other area of BMC work, probably more than the sum total of all other areas.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Its only last year that the AGM open forum noted concerns about the nature of the ISCF and undertook to pursue those concerns.

In reply to galpinos:


Don't you think that whilst the BMC has a 'Mend the Mountains' campaign a logo indicative of a broken mountain is problematic?

In reply to Andy Say:

Andy this was Bob Pettigrew stirring the sh&t, he knew the answer to his own question, I was asked it by 2 BMC VP's and was able to direct both of them to the relevant Article in the IFSC's Statutes.

In reply to Franco Cookson:
Climb Britain is a movement that concerns itself only with a couple of aspects of the above list of activities and will only be relevant for a decade or so. What then?


I support your support for all the good things that the British Mountaineering Council has done of late. They are good people who do one hell of a lot for all of us and ARE adaptive and forward-thinking.

I suspect that you didn't mean 'movement' so much as 'change'. 'Climb Britain' isn't a 'movement' it is just a re-brand of what exists. It has nothing new and presents nothing new apart from 'presentation'. British Gas becoming Centrica wasn't a 'movement'. It was an attempt to align with what was seen as a trendy zeitgeist. I'm sure the consultants made a bomb.

Much as I hesitate to suggest that BMC members can learn anything from those with webbed feet why on earth couldn't we have adopted the BCU (and I KNOW they have dropped the 'U') model of a couple of years ago, retaining the identity of the parent body whilst promoting a development/participation programme called something like, oh, I don't know, 'Climb Britain'.

P.S. £25k to copy what other NGB's are doing seems a bit steep.

PPS. Whilst we have Mountaineering Ireland and the MCofS are becoming Mountaineering Scotland why on earth do we not do just a smidgen of joined-up thinking. Mountaineering England and Mountaineering Wales/Mynnydda Cymru?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


And he does that well

I didn't see you there, Graeme. Where were you sitting? It would have been good to get your view.

But my point was that this is not necessarily dim and distant history involving folks most young climbers haven't even heard of; there are some big issues worthy of debate right now. At the AGM there were comparisons made between IFSC and the imbroglio at FIFA with all of the self-interest, creation of power bases and other stuff they seemed to share; and I'm not sure how citing an unquoted Article assuages that concern.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Interesting - I'm not sure what to make of that: Few (relatively) participants, but many volunteers? Is it related to many participants being kids (my assumption)? Or perhaps volunteering to help with a comp is more 'fun' that cleaning up Pex Hill on a wet Sunday or negotiating access with some truculent farmer with a shotgun?

In reply to Andy Say:

I wasn't there Andy but as I said, I was asked about Bob's comments by 2 VP's. Bob had said that Marco was President for life, hence the FIFA comparison. I suggested that Bob knew that there are elections every 4 years and was therefore deliberately misleading the AGM. You know the history from 10 years ago so might understand Bob's motives.

The article states
"Article 25
Candidates standing for election to any post in the Executive Board (with the exception of the representatives of the Athletes and representatives of the Continental Councils) shall be presented by the Member association of the country where he/she holds citizenship.
The members of the Executive Board (with the exception of the representatives of the Athletes and representatives of the Continental Councils) are elected by the Plenary Assembly for a term of four years.
Executive Board members are re-eligible at will."

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Graeme, I will admit that the internal structure of the IFSC isn't really germane to this thread. Maybe we start another thread titled 'Sepp and Marco - oligarchs for life?'

But it is indicative that someone of your expertise and knowledge was not bothered to come to the BMC AGM do you not think?

In reply to Andy Say:

After listening to too many discussions about Club subs I never want to go to a BMC AGM again

In reply to Andy Say:
No, I really don't. I hated the logo at first and still don't like it in the jingoistic red white and blue (though maybe that version should be retained for the comp climbing team/publicity) but it seems a lot less harsh and uncomfortable in white on an image. I imagine after seeing it a few more times I might even quite like it.

(Still not a patch on the old logo though.)

In reply to RupertD:
Your para 4 says the BMC acronym is not well known. When I lived in the USA (I came back 4 years ago) I regularly wore clothes with the BMC logo on. Without opening my mouth (I know, unusual for me!) I was recognised as a British climber and member of a well respected, well known organisation who did a lot for all aspects of climbing/mountaineering/hill walking. The American climbers wished their Association was as dedicated and democratic as the BMC.
The BMC acronym and logo ARE recognised worldwide as the sign of a very professional support body for British outdoor activities.
I asked American friends about the change to CB and they thought I was joking! "Why change something that is well know for an Americanised fast food name!" was one response.

In reply to Andy Say:


I am not clear hoe this demonstrates that "Climb Britain is a movement that concerns itself only with a couple of aspects of the above list of activities and will only be relevant for a decade or so. "

Can you elaborate?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Who's a hoe? You wash your mouth out!

And for the rest of your post - I don't know. You're not actually quoting me; you are referencing Franco Cookson. My reference to the IFSC* issue was actually to demonstrate that the British Mountaineering Council does actually discuss up to date stuff. Sometimes.


* Now that IS a crap acronym.......

In reply to net:

I discussed this with several members of our mountaineering club at the weekend meet. The club comprises both climbers and hillwalkers. The unanimous response from the hillwalkers was that they don't identify with "Climb", which they associate with roped climbing. They do identify with "Mountaineering".

In reply to Andy Say:



I thought you were replying to my question to Franco. Oh well, I'm confused now