/ NEWS: BMC Rebrand 'Climb Britain' Called Off

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
UKC News - on 15:36 Fri
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on their website that the previously reported - and widely debated - decision to rebrand as 'Climb Britain' has been retracted.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
yesbutnobutyesbut - on 15:38 Fri
In reply to UKC News:

They've done the right thing. Well done BMC.
Steve Perry - on 15:41 Fri
In reply to UKC News: Well done in listening to the membership.

Purple - on 15:43 Fri
In reply to UKC News:

Is this a 'Climb Down'?
Trangia - on 16:26 Fri
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........
Mike Highbury - on 16:36 Fri
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.
TobyA on 16:36 Fri
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!!!!!!!!
SChriscoli on 16:36 Fri
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?
Becky E - on 16:39 Fri
In reply to Trangia:

Just to remind people: the consultancy fees did not come out of BMC funds.
Trangia - on 16:44 Fri
In reply to Becky E:

If that's the case I'll withdraw my comment.
TomGB - on 16:44 Fri
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.
Tyler - on 16:50 Fri
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 - on 16:51 Fri
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 - on 16:57 Fri
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 - on 17:03 Fri
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 !
Ramblin dave - on 17:05 Fri
MG - on 17:05 Fri
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Well somebody's (presumably tax payers) money has been wasted.
Post edited at 17:11
L Bill&Ben - on 17:10 Fri
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.

Jenny C on 17:15 Fri
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 on 17:17 Fri
In reply to Bill&Ben:

I don't know about that - it's managed to attract new members for the last seventy years...
Tyler - on 17:18 Fri
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
ultrabumbly on 17:18 Fri
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
Graeme Alderson on 17:30 Fri
In reply to Chris the Tall:

A fair bit of staff time and other resources have been consumed though Chris.
ultrabumbly on 17:32 Fri
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".
Dave192939 - on 17:33 Fri
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.
captain paranoia - on 17:38 Fri
In reply to UKC News:

Sanity prevails...
john arran - on 17:40 Fri
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.
timjones - on 17:50 Fri
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.
Babika - on 17:56 Fri
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

Chris the Tall - on 17:59 Fri
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 - on 18:02 Fri
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...?
Michael Gordon - on 18:05 Fri
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 - on 18:08 Fri
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
Chris the Tall - on 18:08 Fri
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 - on 18:28 Fri
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.
Trangia - on 18:44 Fri
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.

MG - on 18:45 Fri
In reply to Will Hunt:

Rather than insulting people, perhaps consider whether whoever spent this taxpayers money, did so wisely.
SChriscoli on 18:52 Fri
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
Will Hunt - on 19:04 Fri
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.
Jonathan Spooner - on 19:09 Fri
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 - on 19:31 Fri
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
team fat belly - on 19:34 Fri
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.
bouldery bits - on 19:55 Fri
In reply to UKC News:

Not this again....
Misha - on 20:08 Fri
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.
ads.ukclimbing.com
L Long Pinky on 20:14 Fri
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.
steve glasper - on 20:23 Fri
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)
Chris the Tall - on 21:00 Fri
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 !)
Graeme Alderson on 21:45 Fri
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.
Misha - on 21:59 Fri
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.
mysterion on 22:27 Fri
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 - on 22:58 Fri
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.
Graeme Hammond - on 23:04 Fri
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&hl=en-GB&source=...
pencilled in on 01:14 Sat
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.
MonkeyPuzzle - on 01:30 Sat
In reply to UKC News:

Twice in one lifetime! It's Coco Pops / Choco Krispies all over again!
Lusk - on 01:41 Sat
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Twice? Thrice man!

I still haven't got over the chronic name change of Marathon bars.
Misha - on 01:41 Sat
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.
Lusk - on 01:58 Sat
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.

bouldery bits - on 10:09 Sat
In reply to Lusk:


> And I have two MOAC Originals.

Good for you.
Andy Say - on 12:40 Sat
In reply to UKC News:

I think that'#s really good.

Well done BMC.
alastairmac - on 18:07 Sat
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.
george mc - on 19:01 Sat
In reply to UKC News:

Now to be truly representative just needs to be renamed English Mountaineering Council...
bede.west - on 20:49 Sat
In reply to UKC News:

Oh good!
Ramon Marin - on 22:18 Sat
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.
scottywakefield on 23:27 Sat
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 on 07:35 Sun
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 on 07:44 Sun
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 - on 07:50 Sun
In reply to UKC News:

Phew, one less pointless rebranding exercise !!
Offwidth - on 07:50 Sun
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 - on 07:53 Sun
In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Ah but the intermet force strong was not when occurred that logo change.
Offwidth - on 08:09 Sun
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 on 08:15 Sun
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 on 08:38 Sun
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?

captain paranoia - on 13:15 Sun
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 - on 15:32 Sun
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 on 15:51 Sun
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 on 15:52 Sun
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

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.