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?