UKC

Just been reading Dave Turnbull's blog:
http://www.thebmc.co.uk/blogs/ceo/index.html

Do you think there's a case for the BMC changing its name?
Do you think that would cause more problems than it solved?
If the name puts off the groups Dave suggests it does, do you see that as a problem? Or not?

And if it was to be re-named, what name would you choose?

In reply to gingerkate:
Well it's a bit annoying we can't directly comment on the blog (at least I can't find a link!)
BMC bods is there a reason why not?

Anyway back to the question, I think a name change could be in order, to an outsider mountaineering doesn't equate with what a lot of us do. It summons up images of people in the alps, not out single pitching in the PEak, or even anywhere else in the country!
What to change it to, I have no idea!

In reply to Katie Weston:


I've got a blog with the same hosts, so I know how they work. The comments option is normally below each post. He's got the comments turned off, which you have to do deliberately - it's not the default setting. Presumably no comments required.

In reply to gingerkate:

Possibly a name change, as I'm not sure how many people who climb actually mountaineer in the UK/abroad or aspire to this. I think ‘Climbing’ would encompass trad, sport, boldering, ice, dry tooling, aid, indoor climbing, Alpine , deep water soloing, top-roping and even the abseilers. Also is it the British Mountaineering Council as Scotland seems to be represented by the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, Welsh and English Mountaineering Club then. Not sure how Northern Ireland are represented within the BMC.

Not sure if it would cause more problems? After all who knows about the BMC, climbers and possibly people effected by their activities, so a land owner who has stopped bouldering may be bemused that ‘The British Mountaineering Council tries to negotiate access, after all it’s just a small lump of rock, not K2.

British Climbing and Mountaineering Club?

In reply to Katie Weston:

I know!? It seems madness not to allow comments as the BMC obviously is trying to be much more user oriented etc. For Dave to be able to hear peoples ideas directly I would imagine would be really useful. With Kate putting this thread here he probably would have half a dozen useful (plus the obligatory bad joke) suggestions by now!

In reply to gingerkate: I think it should be the British Union of Mountaineers.

In reply to Alphin: I don't agree.

Look at DEFRA/MAFF it's the same bullshit.

Why do the BMC need a name change when the MC of S don't?

re the landowner, just explain the remit of the BMC, phone up, explain why the BMC are involved, that's all it takes.

The BMC also represent hill walkers, so should it be British Climing Mountaineering and Hill walking club..

re naming is just a waste of money, new brochures, website etc etc..

In reply to gingerkate:

Personally I'm against it, but maybe I'm just change resistant. I don't think it's needed really. I assosiate the BMC with everything from indoor walls to summiting everest.

I do think that representing mountian bikers is a bad idea though. <bigoted simplification warning>After all, all they do is destroy the mountains with their 2" tyres, innit </bigoted simplification warning> Bit more seriously, I don't think that mountain bikers really need to be represented by anyone, although I don't know too much about the mtb access or insurance or expeditions or...

Josh.

In reply to IainRUK:


For your information, the Association of Scottish Climbing Clubs (ASCC) changed it's name in 1970 to the Mountaineering Council of Scotland (MCofS).

In reply to freelancer_85: Agree with freelancer

In reply to Al Evans:

Now don't start that again! I had enough giggling fits when Crags offered BUM insurance; BUM deals; etc.

boB

In reply to Norrie Muir: Seems strange that the BMC want to go back then.

Mountaineering covers it all. They should leave it and not waste time.

Anyway I don't think it should include biking. Where do you join the line? Kayaking, fishing, horse riding, trial biking?

In reply to IainRUK:

The BMC represents Scotland also, well that’s what the name applies. I think in the 25 years I have climbed the sport has changed from just trad, mountaineering, scrambling and hill walking.

Not say it is the correct thing to do is change the name, but why not? There are now many aspects to climbing in the UK, few are mountaineering (trad, ice and hill walking) so why not have another name for our national body to represent all aspects of our sport?

What does Mountaineering depict when you think about it? For it’s me not bouldering, sports climbing, indoor climbing and even competitions, what’s wrong with re-branding to represent what is actually happening within climbing in the UK?

In reply to Alphin: So how can one term describe sport, road side trad, mountain trad, bouldering, sea cliffs, scrambling and hill walking. For me mountaineering is as close as it can be. Why complicate things.

I also think hold off. For all we know 'Britain' may not last much longer as we know it, so maybe just wait and see, before it is renamed 'English'.

In reply to Alphin:

Not really, Scottish Mountaineering/Climbing Clubs can't join the BMC, so you still have a lot to learn even after 25 year.

In reply to Alphin:

Well just about the only word that isn't going to turn people off is "climbing". I can't think of another word that doesn't imply inclusion of a multitude of other sports.

Given the hooha about BMC finances in the past, should they be looking at rebranding? It is not exactly cheap to do and could members' subscriptions not be put to better use?

boB

In reply to Norrie Muir:

>Scottish Mountaineering/Climbing Clubs can't join the BMC, so you still have a lot to learn even after 25 year.

Tongue in cheek possibly, as I seem to remember Scotland is a part of Britain an not England? so if they can't join the BMC why is it the BMC?

In reply to TobyA:

SOrry. Comments thing is my fault. Being the big bosses blog and all I turned off comments when I set it up. And now I can't work how to turn them back on again. Will sort tomorrow - but meanwhile do email dave@thebmc.co.uk with any thoughts.

PS, Niall's been busy on his too...

In reply to Alphin:

so if they can't join the BMC why is it the BMC?

Maybe the BMC is the wrong name.

In reply to Norrie Muir: How about UKC?

In reply to Al Evans: Ive got a funny feeling its going to be something as simple as BCC (British Climbing Club)

In reply to Norrie Muir: But then what about Wales and Northern Ireland?

With all the changes recently it's definately worth holding off, as Bob says any rebranding isn't cheap.

In reply to Al Evans:

I would not say that is the wrong name either.

In reply to Flaming_climber: To simple, what about Scrambling?

This is just nit picking.

I've worked in central government and spent hours debating the use of 'aim' or 'goal', 'purpose' or 'intent', 'research' or 'science', 'tactical' or 'strategic'. It really was a waste of money and time.

In reply to gingerkate: Easy...the initials stay the same and it could be changed to the British Mountain Council.

In reply to gingerkate:

British Uber Mountaineers?

In reply to gingerkate:

I think the "mountaineering" part of their name is fine as it is about as close to encompassing everything as we'll get.

Take out the owrd British though as it's main focus is England and Wales. Either that or they should campaign for the dissolution of the MCofS.

In reply to Donald M: But England and Wales Mountaineering Council?

What about NI?

The ENIWMC is a bit of a mouth full?

Still think leave it until Wales and Ireland have a MC of S equivalent? Do they? They have their own ML training boards?

In reply to gingerkate:

Just out of interest, has this post been edited, or did I not see the bold bit before???

Josh.

In reply to gingerkate: hows about,
Bouldering, Marching, Climbing. Or simply CMB.

Should they change their name? No, they shoud so something useful (for once?) like supporting britains next generation of climbing through cheap alpine courses that are bit more than dangerous walking and teaching people the theory of avoiding avalanches. Also regular climbing meets. Also rather than trying to get acces to some crumbing quarry, maybe they should deal with irresponsible climbers who leave their litter lying around at crags.

As they seem to want to attract more boulders and sport climbers, surely such folk will find it a bit patronising that the BMC thinks theyll part with their money just becasue the name includes their sport? Does anyone who only boulders/sport climb think this?

ta
Joe

In reply to JoeL 90:

Conseil britannique d'alpinisme (BMC)

In reply to gingerkate:
Keep BMC.
Then use BMC/Climb
BMC/Walk
BMC/Boulder
etc for sub- activities where it's thought necessary. Fits in with t'internet, requires minimal changes and is unambiguous, but admittedly a little clunky.

In reply to Scranner: Why?

It would be interesting to know how many people only do one or the other?

Personally I fell run, boulder, climb, scramble, hill walk.

My Bug bear is the FRA (Fell Runners Association) which is infact the Fell Racers Association. As generally they only cater for fell racers, rather than those who run for shear love of the hills, like the BMC caters for those who climb for competition, social or just for enjoyment.

In reply to freelancer_85:
I wondered what you were on about there... then I looked back at the OP. Yes, we seem to be boldly going where we were just normally-typefacedly going before...

In reply to IainRUK:

Yes, but we've got to drop Mountaineering and include everything (including bikes and Kayaks), so

ENIWNCCSAWMBK

Englind, Northern Ireland, Wales Council of Climbers, Scrablers, Abseilers, Walkers, Mountain Bikers and Kayakers?

In reply to Katie Weston:
Hmmm......

The question in hand

BMC is probably fine for the current membership, who know what they do, who they represent and what they offer.
So the question is (or are), do they want to grow their membership, who do they want to appeal to, Is the BMC an appropriate name to appeal to these new people?

so Casual hill walkers? Boulderers? sport climbers? None are exactly mountaineers, but then you don't want anything too exclusive either. BMC is probably a reasonable compromise.

Does the BMC want to appeal to none climbers? (for support for campaigns, donations etc) BMC propably a good title for that too.

2 concerns -
"Council" is a wee bit 1950s tweed and ventile. Perhaps a bit elitist too? (meaning that the word could be interpreted that way, I think the BMC are reasonably inclusive)
Don't get sidetracked into any argument driven by nationalism of any hue.

In reply to toad: Agree the 'British' is misleading as the BMC is England & Wales (is Northern Ireland covered by an all Ireland body ?) but whats wrong with mountaineering as an all round term ?

If you want to look elsewhere (unlike the British I know) you'll see that the European alpine clubs mostly use the word 'alpine' somewhere even though many members mostly walk/climb/cycle elsewhere most of the time - definitly the case with CAF where the 'alpinists' are hugely outnumbered by the walkers

In reply to gingerkate:

I personally think 'Climbing' covers more bases than 'Mountaineering', but still don't think it's of great importance we know it more as the 'BMC' than the 'British Mountaineering Council' anyway. Plus if they change the name then my guidebooks will look weird on my shelf.

In reply to Doug:

I'd have expected them to follow time-honoured English tradition and just call it "The Mountaineering Council".

Like they do with "The Football Association", "The Alpine Club", etc. etc.

In reply to alex: Nice one. Thanks Alex. I'll check out Niall's as well.

In reply to gingerkate:

Hi GK

I don't think it needs to - it's not *really* broken, so why fix it? Especially when the BMC is a very small staff trying to do waaay more, and more important, stuff than they have capacity for already.

It always makes me worry when you see hard-pressed, lean organisations starting to ponder titles and branding. Too often a sign of distraction from really important things - rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Climbers are mostly smart enough to know that the "M" includes what they do....aren't they?

JMHO

John

In reply to Moacs: A grain of sense at last, if anything wants changing its just the 'B' initial, as it quite clearly isnt the 'British' as it excludes Scotland. I cant see why you cant have the MC of S and still let any scottish clubs that want to be members join up..

In reply to Moacs:

It seems Dave Turnbull thinks it is due to static membership and many climbers not joining.

I think they do need a more embracing name, more inclusive. Council and having 'officers' is very old fashioned and dated. The BMC has changed considerably I think it would be great to have a new name and identity to reflect what they actually do.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I'm not sure a name change will fix the issue of many climbers not joining.

My hypothesis is that climbers *are* aware of the breadth of the BMC but choose not to join for other reasons.

If they fixed the "other reasons" then people would join despite the name.

J

In reply to Moacs:

I'm in two minds myself. On one hand, I don't think the name fits what the BMC now is, or does. If it had no name, and you had to name it at this point in time, can't see many of us picking British Mountaineering Council.

On the other hand, I've seen plenty of organisations waste time in internal debate, including name changes, and have yet to see any productive outcomes of such debate.

If it was to have a new name, the word I'd focus on would be 'Climbers'... because it's the one word that encompasses all of us... including the hillwalkers if you use climbing in it's Eng language sense... and I'd not use 'British' because it sounds empire to me... I'd use UK.

One way round actually changing it, that I've seen others do, would be to keep to the initials but let the meaning of them fall into disuse, and follow the initials with what the organisation does... ie instead of saying 'BMC-British Mountaineering Council' you'd start titling pages 'BMC- the UK Climbers' Organisation'... but I notice that the BMC are already doing something in that direction, with a nice one line explanation of the organisation's purpose.

So, I'd probably go for leaving it as it is. But wouldn't argue against anyone wanting to change it.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
I thought the membership was pretty huge? Huge but static then?

I'm not sure that the name is the issue. It's not why I'm not a member, anyway.

In reply to Moacs:


I think they are thinking not only of a name change but other marketing as well to get the message across that the BMC isn't the stuffy old-boys-network and bureacratic organisation it once was.

The Access Fund and the American Alpine Club in the US have done similar campaigns to increase membership.

I'm sure all the BMC activity in North Wales recently (and in other places) has considerably raised the profile of the BMC and it is thought of more as 'us' rather than 'them.'

Now if we can only get MC Dave "Run BMC" Turnbull to allow replies on his blog or even to reply on here....now and again.

Mick

In reply to gingerkate: Thats a good point about keeping the initials but letting the meaning drop. Thats what WWF did, its no longer the World Wildlife Fund its just WWF, plus the descriptor, in their case its The Global Environmental Organisation (I think, its been a while!).

In reply to callum:
Yes, they did it bit by bit, didn't they... World Wide Fund for Nature as an interim step?

In reply to gingerkate:

Call me conservative but I say leave it alone. The example he gives - 'Sport England' - is good example of how badly this kind of idea can turn out.

In reply to gingerkate: That was our North American colleagues who refused to change! In Europe at least its all just WWF now.

In reply to callum:
'British Mountaineers & Climbers'.... keeps the mountain bit in, which would keep some people happy — and help with funding — gets 'climbers' in, which is the word that's missing, and drops the 'council' which is archaic and yuk.

But still has the British...hmmm...

In reply to IainRUK:

This may be true from your experience in local government, but when it comes to running a business, where you have to make sales to survive, then spending money on rebranding *can* be an investment rather than a waste of money. This is borne out by several thousand rebrandings every year, carried out by companies that vary from local corner shop to the large multinational. The BMC (and similar bodies) are that special sort of business, in which although their primary goal is not make money, yet they need to make enough money to push ahead with what actually is their primary goal (in the BMC's case, looking out for our interests in the wider world).

The fact is that the current BMC managment seem to be the most financially sensible lot that we've had for a while. This enables them to look at other problems facing the organisation, namely, as Mick points out, the largely static membership, and the worry that the organisation doesn't do enough to show that it represents ALL types of climbing. A renaming/rebranding excersise is therefore a valid thing to consider and debate - note that nobody is yet saying that it's going to happen.

WRT mountain bikers: As a keen biker myself, I would argue that the diverse range of cycling is too broad a canvas for the BMC to take on. Cross-country, enduro, cyclo-touring, downhill and trials are all as different to each other as the various strands of 'climbing'. If mtbers want a national body, we should form our own.

Lastly, I agree - this is web 2.0, why can't I write this on the BMC blog!?

In reply to gingerkate: The Climbers Club would be good, but err we've nicked that one already.

In reply to callum:
Bugger and eeek, I should be out of here and working!
Bye!

In reply to Ridge:
For those who are unaware Northern Ireland and Eire, in an example of co-operation and integration have a single Council; the MCI. That body represents all climbers and mountaineers in both North and South.

In reply to callum:


The example I can think of is The Wildlife Trusts - an umbrella of many autonomous charities (including the Scottish Wildlife Trust) with a single theme / marketing device. It was (and legally, still is I think) the Royal Society for Nature Conservation - very olde stuffie, but dropped the RSNC element for marketing/ public use years ago.

I think the lack of Blog response is an indicator of how far the BMC, in whatever guise, still needs to travel, though.

In reply to gingerkate:

gingerkate:

andi turner:

How about UKClimbing?

In reply to gingerkate:Just leave it as the BMC. The BMC will never be trendy, or down with the kids. It's a VERY important established organisation, leave the name alone.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

What is wrong with British in the title, the Scots may say they have their own organisation but the BMC DOES support that as well with finance and maybe other things I do not know of such as these;

http://www.mountaineering-scotland.org.uk/huts/brittle.html

Alex McIntyre Hut

In reply to toad: True Toad, now we always call them the Wildlife Trusts. I notice that the Wetlands and Wildfowl Trust are now using just WWT more and more. Trouble is BMC is already taken by a bicycle manufacturer (you'll see Astana riding them on the Tour today) so registering the name may be difficult.

Perhaps call it the Confederation of Climbers, although the acronym is a little unfortunate!

In reply to sutty: are you sure the BMC support the MCoS financially ? I thought their funding came from their own members, plus various Scottish bodies such as SNH & the Scottish Sports Council (which I think has also changed its name to something considered more trendy)

In reply to gingerkate: No, I don't think there's a case for the BMC to change name, but a very large financial reason not to. I've worked for companies that have "re-branded" and it's been a desperately expensive exercise in futility.

What problem would it solve?

I don't see how the name is putting anybody off, just the perception that they don't need it.

In reply to gingerkate:
Look at it this way if they change it will cost a whole load of money that could be better spent else where.

In reply to simon geering:

I think that its a fruitless exercise... Iv been climbing for about 2 years and have no idea how the BMC could actually pose a benefit to me.

It would be more worthwhile to invest in PR and highlighting the benefits of all getting involved within the organisation.

In reply to people

OK, you can now all comment on Dave's blog.

Had to repost all his posts to show the comments option, so don't be confused if all the posts have todays date on.

In reply to sutty:

I know you are old, but the 4th line in your link states "Jointly owned by the MCofS and BMC".

In reply to gingerkate:
Yep, the council bit is outdated
It started off as a council of clubs, then they started letting pesky individual members in and it's been nothing but trouble since

How about the British Mountaineering Collective ?
Association of British Climbers ?
Or more accurately : Association of English And Welsh Climbers, Mountaineers and Adventurous walkers (Scots and Bumblies in Red Sock almost welcome)

Or lets go all modern
BritishMountaineering.com
BMC 2.0

In reply to gingerkate: British Union of Mountaineers would get my vote

In reply to

Niall has also added another entry to his blog:

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/blogs/guidebooks/index.html

In reply to Al Evans: dammit!!

In reply to alex:

from the Blog:
...but feeling quietly assured that the BMC was better connected than it had been 24 hours previously.


Out of interest, why were comments initially disabled, given this appeared not to be the default option.

I'm interested in the idea behind it, rather than trying to pick holes. Was it intended purely as a means to publish more informal articles, rather than an interactive process?

In reply to antpayne2003:

How about fighting for access, fighting enviromental atrocities, producing the definitive guides to many areas, offering extremely good mountaineering insurance (some of which is included in membership fees), and lots of other things of benefit to the UK climber.
OK if you are selfish, yes they would do it anyhow, whether you are a member or not, hardly an argument not to support it though isd it?
Oh, and as a member you get preferential access to various huts throughout the UK.
Al

In reply to toad:

There's no great conspiracy. I suggested to Dave that if he had comments turned off it'd be less work for him initially. Yes, my fault. But don't shoot me.

Anyway, they're switched on now, and will be forever, so do go and comment - the more feedback the BMC bloggers get, the more they'll write.

In reply to alex:

10 minutes a day:

UK Climbing Massif UCM

UK Climber Posse UCP

Dudes of UK Climbing DUC

Climbers' United CU

Climb UK CUK

Climb: England and Wales CEA

Xtreme Climb UK XCU

In reply to gingerkate:

Can't think of a good name off-hand, but I think The Access Fund, in the US, has it right. Similarly there are various provincial Climbers Access Societies in Canada. Headlining the word 'Access' might help the BMC focus on what it really should be there for, rather than the unnecessary activities where it encroaches into the private sector like magazines and guidebooks - sorry Alex and Niall - and (maybe) insurance.

In reply to Norrie Muir:

Correct Norrie, pleased to see you can still read. Same with the other hut, the whole thing is factually correct. Email me if you want details.

In reply to people:

Oh go on then, since it's my fault:

Leava a comment on Dave's blog site today and you could win a free copy of the new Stanage guide - name will be picked at random at end of the day.

In reply to gingerkate: Looking from business point of view if BMC is in need of attracting new people then change is probably needed, especially when looking to target younger people.

Obviously cost implications involved in rebranding and the pr needed in that. However should in theory be offset in longterm.

As for suggestions for new name, keep it simple - Climb Britain, we all like climbing, we are based in britain! May exclude hill walkers - but then I am sure there are rambling associations?

In reply to harlequinarcher: Why exclude hill walkers?

What about Scramblers? Mountaineers?

We don't all like climbing.

I think just leave it.

In reply to JoeL 90:

You speak from a position of some ignorance.

Darron

In reply to harlequinarcher:

It's not the name that need to change, it's the way the BMC is promoted. If it's good work isn't being used as a wroking selling point under it's current name it won't do any better just because it has a fancy and expensive new name.


Why exclude anyone mountaineering is a perfectly good name encompasses all the sports that feed it and their basic skills and needs.

In reply to Doug:

Yes they do get a grant from the BMC but I think it should come direct to the MCofS instead of through the BMC.

The BMC doesn't offer services to all parts of Britain so regardless of the political arguments they can't call it a British org on that reason alone.

I say rename the BMC to the EWMC.

In reply to Donald M: BMC does represent the whole of GB on international issues ie UIAA and IFSC stuff

In reply to gingerkate:

Brilliant! Mad! Climbing!


I'm liking BritishMountaineering.com too...

In reply to gingerkate:

Maybe we should go the whole corporate hog and call it something like

"Aspire"

Tells us nothing about the organisation and sounds all new-age and holistic....

In reply to harlequinarcher:

Since the whole point of changing the name is to attract groups of people that are excluded by 'mountaineering', it was be a bit self defeating to then exclude a large number of mountaineering types who are not climbers...

And Climb Britain is so wanky and New Labour faddy - it would be changed in 5-10 years because nobody would know who the organisation is or what they stand for

I think that the BMC may well want to change its name as part of its empire-building hidden agenda. The BMC was originally a council made up of representatives from the major clubs of the time. Since then it has represented those and other clubs and been the national body representing climbers, mountaineers etc. Over the past few years it has tried to become a club in its own right, attracting a substantial number of individual members who may or may not be part of another club. It has also attracted the people that want membership/insurance etc. but don't want to be part of a more local club for whatever reason. Changing the name of the BMC to be more of a club would perhaps make people think they can get the same things from them as they could from a more traditional club environment, ie. local meets, club huts, local social meets, the chance to make new like-minded friends in the local area, the list goes on. On a national level this sort of service is hard to achieve and should be left to the local clubs, who are indeed the mainstay of the BMC membership and its cause for existance in the first place.

If the BMC is to change its name to reflect who it represents and what it is supoposed to be doing then perhaps it could take ideas from the British Cycling Federation. They became British Cycling and are the recognised Governing Body, not actually a club in its own right. They represent their sport admirably and when mountain biking hit the scene they became the governing body for that as well, thus representing a new and innovative part of their own sport, much like the explosion in competition climbing and bouldering in our own field.

I know British Mountaineering, Climbing, Bouldering and Hillwalking Federation is a bit of a mouthful, so perhaps we could think of something more amenable! How about British Climbing and Mountain Sports Federation?

Jason

In reply to Donald M:

They get the grant towards access Donald, because your new Scottish parliament cut access funding, so it IS providing services on the access front to all parts of Britain. Now do you want to go it alone, pay a lot more for membership when the BMC withdraw their aid?

Get that hair shirt off man, stop beating yourself and others up in the name of nationalism, otherwise you may find you have to hire a navy and air force as well.

In reply to jsw1:

>How about British Climbing and Mountain Sports Federation?

I think that's a cracker!

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I disagree, then you get into the whole argument is hillwalking/scrambling/climbing a sport?

In reply to IainRUK:


That's easy Ian. You ignore that argument. I have for over 20 years.

In reply to JoeL 90:

You don't have a clue what the BMC actually does, do you?

(PS - yes, I almost exclusively boulder now.)

In reply to TN: Which shows the problem.

It's a publicity problem, not a brand name problem IMO.

In reply to IainRUK:

I agree entirely.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

So....Alex has now made my blog open for comments. This is very positive but please don't expect me to answer specific comments or questions otherwise the whole thing will become unmanageable.

On the BMC 'name' issue - I think we need to keep 'BMC' (its too big and identifiable a brand name to simply drop), but reduce the use of 'British Mountaineering Council' and somehow link the word 'Climbing' (and possibly 'Bouldering') with the main 'BMC' title. An important consideration of course is that the BMC also covers hill walking (c.20% of our members are hill walkers who don't climb) so we could only use the Climbing or Bouldering tag in the climbing media or at climbing based events. Hope you can follow this - its a bit tricky to explain without spending ages typing.

Anyway - keep posting - the more ideas on the subject the better.

Dave Turnbull

In reply to IainRUK:

Uhhhhh those two are related......the brand name is part of the publicity/image/marketing.

In reply to people:

Just under 2 hours till a Blog commenter wins a free Stanage guide.

Only two posts so far. Your odds are good...

In reply to Team BMC:


Well there you are then.
Bouldering, Mountaineering and Climbing: BMC

(not that I'm in favour of a change, but it fulfils your remit!)

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Yes, they're related. A new name would definitely carry a new feel. And it's going to need a new name, at some point. But now?.... not sure.... would like more info on the 'static membership' figures... would like to hear opinions of people who have never thought of joining... I know I thought for quite a while that it was 'for mountaineers'... because that's what the name says... but that was pre-having a computer... easier to find out what it really is now?

I'm not up to date on how far it's shifted from being a council of clubs to being a individual member organisation...

Aaaargh, am now late again...

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: No it's going down to climbing centres/posters/leaflets explaining what the BMC does and what it can do for boulderers and new climbers coming into the game. Change the name alone and nothing will change.

As said earlier the Britain thing will probably change sometime soon, so I think hold off and see what happens, will the welsh go out alone? etc.

In reply to IainRUK:


As stated on his blog and above, the name change would just be part of the campaign to increase awareness that the BMC is just not for old gray beard mountaineers in breeches.

They are already relevent to all of us but there is still the perception that it it is a stuffy organisation ( a council of mountaineers...the club of clubs), a change of image would help change that perception and could increase membership (increase revenue) and participation, and help them do even more for us, who they represent.

M

In reply to Team BMC:
Bouldering and Mountaineering Climbers?

I just love the thought of you blogging!
Andy

In reply to

Just under 1 hours till a Blog commenter wins a free Stanage guide.

Only four posts so far. Your odds are still good. Winner will be posted here at 4.50pm.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: I'd be interested to look at break down in member ages. I'm only 27 and I'm a member? Naturally as people get older the advnatages of membership, insurance etc, are more attractive. I'm a member for the club access as much as anything.

I thought the remit of the BMC wasn't to increase participation? Just represent those already involved?

In reply to alex: Who won?

In reply to IainRUK:
Yes, who won? Btw is that a photo of your wife? If so, what a beautiful lady!

In reply to gingerkate: Aye, she's alright.

In reply to gingerkate: 1 in 7 chance, never had such good odds, exciting times!

In reply to IainRUK:

I only just got my daughter off the computer in time!

I was a member when I first started climbing 3 or 4 years ago(think you needed it for cheddar gorge or something) and when it came to renew the price had almost doubled - some controversy about individual members paying more than club members - so didnt bother. Probably upset a few people that one. Was it ever sorted out?

In reply to gingerkate: I think it just needs a new mission statement. How about:

The BMC - providing climbing solutions

In reply to bendurance:

And Gingerkate wins!

In reply to gingerkate:
ps Oh dear, saying that has annoyed my daughter. Btw she is 10 and thinks it should be Boulderers, Mountaineerers and Climbers.

I said 'Mountaineers' but she insists on 'Mountaineerers'....

In reply to alex:
Oooooh!!! I'm all excited now!!! Can I have it signed? :-D

In reply to Team BMC:

Here is you moaning about work life balance and you are opening up replies on your blog. I wish you well but the signs from here are not good. As for the name: bloody moaning climbers, bouldering/mountainbiking/clipping become minor cliques by mainstream cliches? Beats me cobber!

Offwidth in Malaysia

In reply to alex: Bah, bloomin kate come lately. Boghopper woz robbed

In reply to bendurance:
That said Im not as broke now and will get around to rejoining. The recent access work and crag cleanups have been good and should be appreciated by all.

In reply to toad:
Hee hee hee, sorry :-D

In reply to gingerkate:

Email me your address (alex@thebmc.co.uk) and we'll get it send out.Don't know who you want to sign it? WE could get Niall to scribble in it I guess.

Let's do another blog-comp next week!

Cheers.

In reply to Al Evans: Beat me to it Al, so what about the Alpinists,Rockclimbers,& Snowclimbers of England

In reply to alex:
Anyone within reach really. Yes, if you could ask Niall, that'd be great.

I will send you my address, cheers.

In reply to Donald M:


Why not bring everyone into the fold and be a real BMC?

In reply to Kipper:
I agree. Or would that tread on someone's toes?

In reply to gingerkate: Why don’t they do a poll asking if people would like a name change or not. If the majority of votes comes back yes they want the name changed THEN think of a new name. Otherwise just keep the original. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. As the saying goes "why fix something if its not broken"

In reply to Flaming_climber:


Read Dave's blog. He is suggesting that it is broken: membership is static, climbing is growing, the climbing demographic and values are changing. Perception's need changing.

Problem: How to recruit new members? How to get the message across that the BMC works for all climbers (and it does)...gym rats and boulderers included.

Ideas on here or Dave's blog.

Mick

In reply to Flaming_climber:

The trouble with that is you're only asking teh people you're already connected up to. Would anyone who is in the BMC currently leave if the name changed? Would new people join? Who knows. I agree with you that some asking needs to be done, but not sure it's as simple as having a poll because I don't see who you poll.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Why is a static membership a problem ? why does it (rather than the component clubs) need more members ?

Not that it really concerns me as I don't live in England (but would prefer the MCoS to stay independent as so much is different in Scotland cf England)

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Thing is though Mick I think this is the way of the game.

Once climbing was very club orientated, I was talking to some fairly big names from climbing about this only very recently. Many big climbs were done by members of these clubs, the clubs drove much of the new routing and developments, this just isn't the case anymore, people seem not to need (or think they don't) the clubs or the organisations and so I think you'll see BMC membership being static like Club memberships.

Interesting to know what club membership is generally like these days?

In reply to Kipper:

Well that is the responsibility of the BMC. The simple fact is, for a variety of reasons, they are not that active in Scotland. IF they want to be a truly British mountaineering council they should be actively trying to turn the MCofS into a regional arm of the BMC.

Personally I think that the MCofS has strived for it's independence and done some good work. I think that the interests of climbers in Scotland would not be better represented by moving the people who represent them further away. Also, as the structure of funding and government is different in Scotland I think the MCofS has to adopt a different position and/or style and that this alone is reaon enough for the MCofS to stay semi-independent.

In reply to Donald M: I agree, access is different, the whole climbing scene is different IMO, and I see know reason why they should be connected really. In Scotland the boundary between walking/climbing/mountaineering seems so much more blurred than in England, where many people are one or the other, I don't think that is the case in Scotland, at least that was what I found anyway.

In reply to gingerkate:

British Climbing Association

In reply to Andy S: But it's so much more than just climbing.

In reply to Doug:

Broadly speaking - given that the bulk (c.60-65%)of BMC income comes from subscriptions - static membership means static income. This is a problem because running costs continue to grow thus it becomes more and more difficult to support such a wide range of work programmes and breakeven. At present we've got a pretty positive, dynamic organisation; our support for volunteers is better than ever, we're getting the access situation sorted out, and we've even managing to buy £10'000.00 worth of bolts to re-equip old/rotten bolts. If we get on a downward financial spiral the organisation as a whole, and our work for climbers, will suffer. Just look at the problems the financial difficulties back in 2002 caused. Its took nearly 3 yrs and alot of stress for volunteers and staff to get through that.

Dave Turnbull

In reply to TN: It allows me to stay in Alpine huts cheaply, provides me with good insurance but at considerable cost and reductions on gear prices. These are all good but as a climber i must say outside this it doesnt seem to do anything worthwile and when i feel that something may be needed that only a large organisation like that can provide it doesn't seem to be there. Irresponsible climbers littering climbing areas and bringing their bloody dogs to have a crap is a problem that needs addressing.

Darron, its UKC, if only informed people posted their would be very little to read.

In reply to JoeL 90:

Heard of Longstone edge? Harpur Hill? Regional groups and crag clean ups? Any number of crags that would be entirely banned by the birders unless somebody said something? 10K to replace bolts? Superb new guidebooks? International meets?

I consider cheap huts, good insurance and gear discounts least important bits that my subs pay for - though they are still great!

In reply to JoeL 90:

.......apart from that what what did the Romans do for us?

In reply to gingerkate:

There are few things as 'uncool' as organisations that feel they have to change their name to attract the 'yoof'.

There is nothing wrong with the name. If there is a real or perceived problem of not enough new members, its because they have failed to answer the '"what's in it for me ?" question adequately.

In reply to gingerkate:

I think it's a mistake to think that re-branding will automatically result in the organisation suddenly appealing to "yoof" and groups such as boulderers.

In my experience, a snappy name may well be memorable, but it's what an organisation does (or is perceived as doing) that counts, not its name.

do stuff that's relevant to the groups you're trying to entice, and they'll join up, regardless of the actual name on the letterhead. Don't and they won't.

I've been through many re-branding exercises in my 30 years in industry, and they've almost all been futile and expensive wastes of time and resources.

In reply to gingerkate: Been having a think about this (seeing as I haven't got a guidbook to read ;p)

Is the problem that the BMC sells itself as offering services to individuals specifically, rather than being seen as a Good Thing generally. Many charities (I know the BMC isn't a charity, and I think there is an important seperate discussion about that to be had) used to sell themselves as offering benefits to members, like access to nature reserves or support for specific ailments etc and had a very limited, but committed, membership base as a result.

For all the problems with Chugging in shopping centres, this method of fund raising has been a turning point for many groups - They have to sell themselves as being a warm fluffy thing to support for the disinterested benefactor, rather than an important membership for the committed supporter.

If you want to recruit members, go where the climbers, walkers or whatever are and ask them to join, not for the benefits of membership, but because the BMC is worth supporting. Pubs in Langdale, car parks in the Pass, shops in Hathersage, and not just a leaflet dispenser but people. Talk to folk. Pay people to talk to folk if need be.

And I feel dirty just saying this, but....Get some proper MEDIA TRAINING! Be the people Coast phone up when they want a climber for Hoy and do it in a BMC T-shirt. Meeting ministers is always nice, but they only give a stuff if Joe Public gives a stuff and currently Joe Public says "who?"

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Large sections of the BMC do not appeal to me, the competitions, the walls sections, the bolt fund, to name three. Walls are commercial operations and should be able to run competitions without input from anyone else. Bolts, well woopy doo, perhaps they will spend another £10.000 on first timers gear, or giving me some free gear to climb with, people doing sport routes should do the same as trad climbers, pay for their own bolts, or make appeals, not get it from the national body.

Perhaps if they set up a regular young persons meet every month in a different area so those under 18 could get out and meet other people their age to climb with, or even every weekend in the school holidays.

Weekend camp or hut in Yorkshire and Derbyshire. Weeks camp at Ogwen and Borrowdale with transport from Bangor and Penrith for those on trains.

Think of Fawcett, Nunn and all the other lads who were doing hard stuff at 15/16 years of age, they would not have had the chance unless they lived locally to crags. They need the help, once they find their feet they will form the nucleus of the new generation of climbers, and hopefully members.

In reply to toad: The Voice of Experience! Couldnt agree more about the media training, its incredibly useful and its great fun arguing with some eejit on the Today programme of a morning!

In reply to...

Just so people know, all BMC Officers have ongoing media training. The organisation as a whole has also taken advice from media consultants.

The BMC office has a Press Officer, Tina Gardner (details here: http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Pages.aspx?page=97 )

Lucky Tina both helps TV programmes like Coast find climbers and meets Ministers.

In reply to sutty:

I see where you're coming from on this, though the competitions thing is something I'd disagree with the economics of. I was involved in the BRYCS for several years and I've hasd discussions on the economics of walls setting competitions with the owners/ managers of several walls. For a regional/ national event like the BRYCS, it's *not* economic for a wall to run a comp itself, unless it's well-sponsored. Look at the income lost for a whole day (usually a Saturday and one of their busiest days) plus the extra staff required, plus extra staff/ route-setters required on days prior to the comp (any idea how long it takes to set and check up to 18 roped routes and up to 30 boulder problems...not just checking the grade but checking things like "reachiness" for y8nger age groups)?

So I don't think comps such as BRYCS would be run at all if it was purely down to commercial walls to organise them directly...you can argue whether that's a good or a bad thing in itself!

Agree on the bolt funding.




More diffcult now, with the level of Child Protection Policies in place, and the demands they make on things like the type of accommodation that can be used.


Historically, my club has had several good 15/16 year olds join and go on to become very committed climbers. They've done this by escaping the sandstone and coming along with us on away trips from quite a young age. Unfortunately the requirement for affiliated clubs to subscribe in full to the BMC's Child Protection Policies means that although we allow people to join at 15, it's now no longer really viable for them to come on away trips with us until they're over 18.

Wonder why the BMC implemented that? I've never heard of any "incident" at a club (and I can't think of a safer place for a minor than in an alpine-style bunk room with another dozen adults of both sexes in the same room)...We had a steady trickle of 15-18 year olds coming into the club. We lost a lot of them at university time, but many retained links with us. Now they tend not to join, as what they can do wiht the club is severely restricted until they're 18...by which time they're mostly off to uni and will join their uni club in preference.

In reply to alex: Don't tell me, I know! Tell Joe Public - s/he hasn't a clue who you are. There is a time for skulking in the background, fixing and facilitating, But there is also a time for jumping around in from of a camera or microphone shouting "LOOK AT ME!"

C'mon Journos are lazy buggers, you could write half their outdoor - related material if you wanted. It doesn't have to be important, or serious, but the BMC needs some serious brand recognition. And members. Lots of members.

And finally...A question
How many membership forms are in your rucksack, right now?

In reply to Rob Naylor:

What happens with the youth meets now, do they have to be over 18 to camp at North Lees, with the child protection policies? If they can camp there, surely they can camp elsewhere as a group of under 18s, with some people who have been vetted as suitable persons to point them at routes and gently guide them to avoid too many dangers.

I know that when I was 16 I was classed as suitable to take some of the younger kids in our street onto Kinder and Bleaklow, often in winter, but I had been wandering round them since I was 14 on my own.

Bloody nanny state, the kids say they have nothing to do, well if they were helped to do things for no more cost than the bus fare and camp site fee they would have plenty to do.

In reply to sutty:

I disagree. The fact is many bolted areas were becming unsafe, despite rarely climbing sport, I applaud the BMC for their donations and am happy to see their money used in such a way.

In reply to sutty:

But the BMC has to think of many thousands of me's, not just one.

In reply to toad:

He already does.

In reply to alex:

Actually this is probably more in reply to Dave Turnbull... but really anyone who can answer this question:

Membership of the BMC is composed of two parts as I understand it: club members who're by default then BMC members, and individual members. 'The membership is static' ... is that that these two separate groups of membership are _both_ static... or is one falling and the other rising?

In reply to jsw1: Second that top name. Good stuff

In reply to sutty:

Not sure about camping. I suspect that all volunteer adults would need vetting. It's not so much about the actual dangers of climbing as the potential dangers posed by any adults in the vicinity!

Huts are a big problem, though, given that adults and minors must now be segregated in separate lockable rooms, minors must be segregated by sex and all adults staying in the hut at the same time as the minors (not just the accompanying adults) must have been vetted.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

That means that the YHA weekends we used to have will now be out of bounds to under 18s, and we used to go at 14 or 15 on our bikes to the peak district, and were in a local YHA group away on weekends long before we were old enough to drink.

Wonder what happens with minors in families now?

In reply to Rob Naylor:


Really? Where has all that guff appeared from?

In reply to timjones:

The Article set out to BMC-affiliated clubs entitled:

"Child Protection and BMC Affiliated Clubs and Huts"

Author: Nick Colton
Dated: 30th January 2006

In reply to gingerkate:

Over the past year Individual membership has gone up very slightly - club membership has gone down a bit, partly because the Army withdrew last year.

Dave Turnbull

In reply to JoeL 90:

hi joel,

so, the BMC should "do something useful for once", eh? presumably you have absolutely no idea what the BMC has been doing for the last, say, five years? if you had, you wouldn't have made such ridiculous and illconsidered comments. i almost feel embarrassed for your ignorance!

"supporting britain's next generation...through cheap alpine courses"? ever heard of the conville courses for young people? thought not. ever heard of the BMC alpine meet? again, thought not.

"regular climbing meets"? join a climbing club, that's what they do all the time! you have no idea, do you?

"trying to access some crumbing quarry"? give us an example place, and a reason why it shouldn't have happened. vague statements like that are pretty lame.

"litter at crags"? why not say something yourself to the people dropping the litter...maybe you're mute or something, in which case i apologise. if you don't see the people dropping litter, organise a crag clean up. the BMC has supported pleanty of such things over the last few years, but you knew that, didn't you? (check UKC, the BMC, climber, climb etc etc etc)

joel, you're a professional complainer with nothing better to do. i was hoping your post would be more of a challenge to rip to pieces, but sadly that was not to be the case. please try harder next time (or better still, get your facts straight)

cheerio!

In reply to martin k: Martin you are being very aggressive to what I'm guessing is a 16 year old lad!

Aren't you an employee of rep for the BMC? Do you think that behaviour encourages membership of the organisation.

Joels view was wrong, but the fact that young climbers hold such views highlights the problem facing the BMC, abuse and ridicule is not the reposnse I'd expect or a response which will help the BMC attract new young climbers, which I think is what they are aiming to do.

In reply to martin k:

Joel's post does illustrate the point about publicity, though. Clearly the BMC has not marketed itself effectively in this case and that has nothing to do with name.

In reply to IainRUK:

I have to agree. Joel is exactly the type of person the BMC should be attracting, but he can't see what the BMC is for, nor what it does.

Martin might be peeved that Joel doesn't recognise the work of its access volunteers, but that's for the BMC to sort out. Changing the BMC's name isn't going to solve the problem of being an organisation which is doing so many things, for so many different users, that its brand has diluted.

How can you be a publisher, sell insurance, secure access, support competitions etc and expect to have a brand that a broad range of people identify with and understand? To attract more membership you need to be smarter at communicating the benefits, which, to my mind, tend to get lost amongst everything else. Just changing the name would obviously be a waste of time and money.

The BMC is still too 'product focussed', rather than 'User focussed'. Take the current BMC homepage. It's cluttered up with 'Climbing Walls', 'Equipment Advice' and 'Safety and Skills' - "all the great stuff that the BMC has published pamphlets on". How much interest is this to the average member and to what degree does it encourage membership?

The BMC's advice on climbing walls is, I would imagine, of little interest to the average member, but it might be to new climbers (or parents of new climbers) and should be included in the 'Getting started' section. The same goes for a lot of the equipment advice and safety stuff that is churned out. It's of secondary importance to the average member and whilst it may be to the new climber/member, it's not really a reason to join.

If growth is going to come from individual membership, the BMC could start by sorting out their numerous products/benefits and giving *less* prominence to 'secondary' areas (e.g. comps/walls), and *more* prominence to access/conservation work - at the heart of why most people join.

In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

But at the club level, there's no point at all in people like Joel joining, as the "Child Protection and BMC Affiliated Clubs and Huts" document put out in 2006 effectively prevents minors going on away meets with their clubs.

It might be *possible* with a lot of hard work by club committees, to get everyone vetted, to limit away venues to huts with sufficient bunk rooms to accomodate minors separately, etc, but in practice club committees are volunteers with lots of other things going on in their lives and the simplest solution is just to say "sorry, under 18s can't go on club away trips unless a parent is along, and then only if the hut has a separate family room".

A pity...several of the youngsters who joined us in the past did so precisely because their parents weren't interested enough in climbing to accompany the youngster.

In reply to DNT:
Cheers Dave.

Are people who're club members still getting counted twice over (if they're in more than one club)? If that's in the process of being resolved it's bound to cause a bit of a drop.

Hey, if you read Dave's latest blog entry it sounds like he's keen on the idea of keeping the name but adding the tag Bouldering, Mountaineering, Climbing after it.

Was that an actual suggestion, or is that an amalgamation of suggestions? Anyway, it gets my vote — keep the name, just downplay it and start writing:

BMC — Bouldering, Mountaineering, Climbing.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

In that case I think the BMC want a good kick up the arse for setting down overly onerous guidelines that can only restrict the paths into climbing for youngsters.

Are these rules, guidelines or just some muppet spouting off without considering the implications of what he is saying?

I'm struggling to find a link to this on the BMC website. Can anyone else find it?

In reply to timjones:

That document is here:

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Download.aspx?id=115

More general Child Protection Info here:

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Download.aspx?id=11

In reply to gingerkate:

We think we've sorted the duplicate issue. Probably not 100% but as close as we can. This has contributed to the drop in membership stats but pinning down a definite number is difficult - even for me.

Dave

In reply to gingerkate:

suggested it earlier up the thread

In reply to Caralynr:
Well I think it's a great idea

In reply to DNT:
I didn't mean an accurate number, just to the nearest 5 thousand or so. The reason I'm asking is this:
There are only so many climbers in this country. Getting the first n of them to sign up to the BMC is obviously easier than getting the second n of them to sign up, which is easier than getting the third n of them to sign up (where n is some nice big number)... and so on and so forth. So I was just wondering what % of UK climbers were members of the BMC already, so as I could have some idea where in that process the BMC is.

ie It's always going to be impossible to get everyone to join, it's inevitably going to tail off at some point, and whilst climbing is a fast-growing sport, I'm not sure how big a proportion of the newer climbers will be people who feel they need the BMC. eg someone who only climbs down the wall probably will see the BMC as less relevant to them than someone who climbs outside regularly.

Is there a place on the BMC website where I can find all the figures and chew over them, so as I don't keep asking pesky questions?

In reply to gingerkate:

The best estimate as to how many climbers there are comes from the recent Sport England - Active People survey (sample size 365000 people). I think (from memory) that the most relevant available figure is that 186000 people in England went climbing in the 1 month period preceeding the survey date. This equates to 3x BMC membership. Give me a call if you want the password to Active People - its a big database of results we hav'nt fully analysed it yet...

In reply to DNT:

Oh that sounds good, yes I'll call.

186 000 in one month? Goodness, that's a lot. But hang on, that's half of their sample? No way are half the population going climbing every month, I do not believe it. Yes, I def want this password, the urge to chew over figures is irresistible...

In reply to gingerkate:

Careful Kate, they will probably co-opt you onto the team as you are a maths guru.

In reply to sutty:
No, I am now a failed maths guru having failed to read that question properly the other day. I will never be able to hold my head high as a maths guru again

In reply to gingerkate:

Don't they mean that based on a sample of 365 000, they estimate that 186 000 (out of the 60m population) went climbing? So the number of survey respondents who climbed was probably around 900ish.

In reply to tmh: Climbing is also one of those sports, like fishing, where people say they do, yet in reality they climb once or twice a year. I'm like that, I bet I get out every few months max.

In reply to tmh:
Ah, that'd make sense!

In reply to IainRUK:
It'd be interesting to know if the survey includes children, because so many kids go to climbing birthday parties at walls now, or go with scouts etc... so that'll up the figures if included. Also little traversing walls at schools are now commonplace... if children are included in the survey they might just mean that when they say 'yes' to having climbed. And why not, because it is climbing after all. But you'd not expect a 10 year old who goes on a birthday party to their local wall to join the BMC.

In reply to gingerkate: Yeah, but even a lot of adults do the odd wall session, with work, kids etc.

In reply to IainRUK:

Then they're climbers, aren't they? And the BMC is for them! Only what does it do for them... hmmm...

Does the BMC want people who are entirely indoor climbers to join? If so, surely it needs to give them a reason to join... (and don't anyone reply with 'competitions', because that's a tiny proportion of indoor climbers)... I mean the ordinary people who climb just indoors... I've heard there are loads of people like that in london?... does the BMC want them as members? Why, just to get their money? Or because the BMC can give them something... if so, what?

In reply to JoeL 90:




Hey - I'm working hard on atracting boulders, giving them a cheeky wave and a wink now and then...

..they play very hard to get most times and are notoriously hard to pull - but get them a drink - and they are anyones!

;0)

Si

In reply to alex: