UKC

It had been suggested that the From Frogatt to Blackrocks and Over the moors guides from the BMC would be out before christmas......

Any up to date news on this?

In reply to idiotproof:
LoL You're 'avin a laugh surely?

In reply to Alex Thompson:

well went to do my own research and found this

http://thebmc.co.uk/Feature.aspx?id=1948

At the 2nd to last Peak meet they were still expecing a pre christmas 08 for the frogatt guide at least

In reply to idiotproof:

That page claims four new books in 2008.

The minutes of the peak Area meeting of 21/11/07 have the following item 5:

5: Guidebook progress
Froggat:
In the final stages of construction. If anyone has any appropriate photos, please contact
guidebook team. Expected in the shops quarter 3, 2008.

Offwidth and I had a bet in Feb 2007 that the BMC would produce 2 books before the end of 2007. Well Stanage was published in May 2007 and nothing since then.

The bet was for a pint which he has already bought for me.

Fancy another wager for 2008 Steve?

I think the question that someone probably needs to ask is are the current active volunteers at the BMC being let down? There is a lot of obvious activity on these forums about various guidebooks, Moorland Grit in particular, but once the volunteers have done their work, is anyone taking responsibility for actually producing the books?

I ask this as a BMC member who know a lot about guidebook publishing, although I recognise there is a potential conflict of interest.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

i asked the same question last week about a pre christmas publish and got this reponse from Offwidth

"No but fingers crossed for soon afterwards, a more formal update presumably at the next BMC meeting.

These things are always hard to predict because of a series of factors including: editors diaries, printers schedules, volunteer help not always matching the needs or urgency of the venue, and people will keep climbing new routes and in this case finding new crags "

Seems a little cryptic towards the end of the message but I can't wait to see the result of so many peoples hard work.

Ben

In reply to popebenedictus:



Not cryptic really - its just new places are being discovered & they need attention - Climbing & checking really, which can hinder the publication date...

Si

In reply to idiotproof:

<unofficial update>

We have been very busy over the summer...

1. Any help is cleaning and developing crag-X, Crag-XX and crag-xXx will be appreciated. See http://thebmc.co.uk/blogs/moorlandgrit/index.html

2. Route checking and climbing on the moorland crags have been hampered by the recent weather. We are using our time; proof reading and sorting out photographs.

3. If you like to get involved, email Martin Kocsis or you can check

http://kakibusok.diinoweb.com/files/Distribution/Itinerary/

I update the above page, whenever we have something planned.

</unofficial update>

In reply to Chris Tan Ver. LI - On the Bog:


Happy to look at any Proofing Chris

Cheers

Si

In reply to idiotproof: You are clearly not idiotproof.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=327473

In reply to Simon:

Not wanting to speak for Martin Kocsis but proof-reading is the major part of the current effort in the Moorland Guide and if anyone wants to contact him and offer precious time proofing our crazed scrawls then here's his contact through this site:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/email.php?u=69131

or via kinderguide AT hotmail.com

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

What's the wager? I like the sport, as well you know, and you certainly deserved the beer for 2008 ....a pint for two books in 2009?? My view as someone close is that no one is letting the volunteers down, certainly not Grimer: shit happens, unexpected things get found, quality is important (although perfection would stop us leaving things for Chris to find .

See these theads and the next BMC peak meeting:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=328470

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=327473

In reply to Offwidth:

Well considering there are still four planned for 2008 on the BMC web site, I think that you betting on 2 for 2009 is not very ambitious. Assuming that Froggatt is actually nearly finished, that really only leaves one of these remaining three to realise, two of which are probably thinner books.

I'll tell you what, if you can use your influence to get some realistic dates on that web page, I'll bet another pint that you don't manage to publish what you claim on the rearranged web page. That is meant to be a motivating bet rather than a snide "you'll never get it right" since I would be more than happy to buy you a pint if the dates become realistic.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

I meant two more....(ie not including Froggatt).... safe bets would be so boring. To be fair to the last published deadlines for Froggatt we really were intending to go at that point but a few unexpected things intervened that made a tight deadline impossible.

Having been a co-sub-editor, or whatever Lynn and I are now (Grimer's leprechauns?) we know how to change a few things to reduce risk and speed things up (and of course we communicate these things to the relevent people) but a lot of stuff was unexpected. On top of the unexpected over the year a lot of work has been done on other planned things (including other guides). However, I guess to know what you seem to want to know to get a realisitic efficiency measure for BMC guidebook production, you would need to find out stuff (including some bits which will be commercial-in-confidence) from the guidebook committee and being sort of a competitor that isn't likely. So all I can do is repeat what I always say: the system may not be as outwardly efficient as Rockfax but then you don't know what's happened; definitive guides are different (harder); from my 'inside' perspective Niall is in my opinion of excellent value. This of course doesn't mean the BMC have nothing to learn from you, couldn't improve or that without Rockfax the new style of guides in this series would even be here. I'd also say in my defence that my views at the time on Stanage (ie it was a very good idea for the BMC to redo this) turned out to be right, according to most climbers I meet and with knowledge of how it fitted at the time in work plannning. I also think the recent guidebooks are lovely.

Finally, Lynn and I have had a rather rough 2008, with the worst bit being the death of one of our closest friends this summer, but as we say in the introduction: despite the heavy load, the guidebook work has actually helped us. Working with Niall is bloody brilliant...wouldn't have missed it for the world. Ditto for the volunteer team of which we are mere cogs.

See you at the Grouse and watch out for those Water Buffalo.....

In reply to Offwidth:

I'll take you up on that bet. 2 books in addition to Froggatt on the shelves before the end of 2009.


I'm not asking for any private information. I am asking for the public page about guidebooks on the BMC web site to be updated so that BMC members (and everyone else) can have some realisitic idea about when they might expect books.

This page is ridiculous - http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Feature.aspx?id=1948 and it perpetuates the impression that no-one really has a clue.


The Rockfax definitive guides we have done were no harder than the others. BMC guides start from where the previous guide left off. Having taken books where we had all the routes in the system in the wrong format, and upgrading and adding a load of new crags (ie. Costa Blanca 2005) I am well aware of how much work is involved in this process. The really hard ones are where you start with a blank sheet of paper eg. Chris's Northern England guide, in fact all Rockfax guides in their first editions.

Once again, the way you portray a system doesn't give me much confidence in it.

The latest BMC books have indeed been superb productions, but at what cost? Are the BMC members aware that they are effectively subsidising guidebook production to a large extent with their membership fees? Many might be happy with this, but I suspect that most aren't aware. This particular member knows about the costs involved and also knows that the system could easily be run profitably with the same quality and content of end product.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

>I'll take you up on that bet. 2 books in addition to Froggatt on the shelves before the end of 2009.

Deal.

>I am asking for the public page about guidebooks on the BMC web site to be updated so that BMC members (and everyone else) can have some realisitic idea about when they might expect books.

All those books are 2008 and beyond with Froggatt just having missed for good reasons. Other bits of the site have been updated and there are 5 peak meetings a year all with updates. Work on the others is also proceeding.


Ridiculous is a bit strong: its one part of the site and only out of date for Froggatt.

>The Rockfax definitive guides we have done were no harder than the others.

You come and check some of those Chatsworth guide quarries for us and see if you change your mind. Your definitive guides are not massively different to your selective ones: nearly all on good routes with lots known about them. A good number of routes in this guide have taken a disproportionate amount of time; many of the obscure ones being filthy and possibly even unclimbed since the last guide. I know this is a much harder job as Stanage was not an especially dissimilar task for us as say a Rockfax and was done and dusted in a comparative whirlwind of activity (another reason I dont believe your costings)

>BMC guides start from where the previous guide left off. Having taken books where we had all the routes in the system in the wrong format, and upgrading and adding a load of new crags (ie. Costa Blanca 2005) I am well aware of how much work is involved in this process. The really hard ones are where you start with a blank sheet of paper eg. Chris's Northern England guide, in fact all Rockfax guides in their first editions.

You have local activists helping you, you have the definitive guidebooks to start from. The number of routes included is similar. This guide had a lot of unreliable information on a lot of lesser known routes; no crag shots or topos, no previous BMC bouldering info. Pretty much all of the delay is scripts, not production.

>Once again, the way you portray a system doesn't give me much confidence in it.

Maybe blame me then, not the guidebook production. I see people working hard for nowt (except Grimer) and producing a high quality product with awareness of the importance of not overdoing it.

>The latest BMC books have indeed been superb productions, but at what cost? Are the BMC members aware that they are effectively subsidising guidebook production to a large extent with their membership fees? Many might be happy with this, but I suspect that most aren't aware. This particular member knows about the costs involved and also knows that the system could easily be run profitably with the same quality and content of end product.

You don't know the fraction spent from Grimer's salary or the level of quite a few other expenses per book so your estimates of costs are unreliable at best and possibly plain wrong. The books are selling well and are lovely. What does 'effectively subsidising' mean.. making less profit than they could??

This is frankly all a bit silly. I think your books are excellent and the BMC books are only slightly better We have in the peak possibly the best guidebooks in the world; from both sides subsidised by ordinary climbers' time checking routes - but on real costs controlled to make the profits required by two different organisations with different aims. Rockfax helped make this situation come about and we should all be very happy.

In reply to Offwidth:

I don't want to appear cruel but I strongly suspect all the time and effort spent cleaning, climbing and checking the obscure esoterica will have been largely wasted when you look back. The routes will return to obscurity even with the new guide - silk-purse and sow's ear comes to mind!

Doubtless you have enjoyed your peregrinations but to hold up a major guide to some of the most popular cliffs in the country because of the need to check every route in (e.g.) The Robin Hood Quarries strikes me as just plain silly.

Chris

In reply to Alan James - UKC: Dear Mr James, you are a very cheeky young man, but I like you! (Does anyone else remember Dick Emery?)

I enjoyed this statement: "This page is ridiculous...and it perpetuates the impression that no-one really has a clue." Perhaps it perpetuates that impression for you; I can't really see what the problem with that page is. You'll need to explain!

Also this one is fun: "The latest BMC books have indeed been superb productions, but at what cost? Are the BMC members aware that they are effectively subsidising guidebook production to a large extent with their membership fees?" A statement like that may need evidence to support it!

Cheerio!

In reply to Chris Craggs: Mr Craggs, well...it's a point of view and who knows, you might even be right. But the thing with definitive guides is that if you're going to include all the crags in them, the information might as well be correct. We could just copy straight out of the old Chatsworth/Kinder/whatever guide, but what's the point of that?

Cheerio!

In reply to martin k:

The information needs to be correct - absolutely. I was questioning holding up the guide to dig-out routes for "checking" when they will probably return to nature before the book is even in the shops.
These routes have been neglected in the past cos they are crap - I know, I have done plenty of them!

Chris

PS Nice on Kinder today http://www.pbase.com/chris_craggs/image/105855836

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Routes fall into neglect for two reasons:
1/ Coz they're crap
2/ Coz the crag is perceived to be crap/unfashionable so no one bothers to go there

Although I'm guilty of unearthing the occasional route-to-avoid on my travails with Kocsis's Kommandoes, it's usually been because they've looked better than they are but, as you say, best left, and best-described as such.
However, I've also been pleased to have been part of the cleaning that's gone on that's put a lot of new highball problems in Running Hill Pits where there were formerly only fern-lined, compact walls; and re-discovered some absolutely spectacular lines on the moors that should be visited as part of a reflective climbing day rather than avoided because the other four routes on the middle-of-nowhere buttress are beyond contemplation. In fact some of these on-trick buttresses are only a few 100 m from a lot of Rockfax venues and I'm sure you know where I mean but if you're going to put them in a guide then you have to get people up there and climbing on them - even if it's just to climb 50% of the routes to gauge the accuracy of the grading and quality of descriptions in the previous edition.
I think Martin's operational and editorial guidance has put emphasis on 2/ and we've all been aware that too much of 1/ is a waste of time and resource, especially with the weather we've had these last two summers!

And yes, the web page on the BMC site is partly out-of-date and confusing.

In reply to martin k:

Thanks for finally updating that page. Perhaps putting a bit of thought into it rather than changing the '2008's to '2009's might have been a little more convincing though and don't forget to check them again next October!


I have all the evidence I need thanks. I know what it costs to produce these things, I know what the margins are and I know how fast they sell. I know that when you do those sums for BMC guidebooks over the last 6 years, you don't end up with anything approaching a profit.

I'll shut up about this now. I tend to bring it up once a year or so and usually end up wondering why I bother especially since an unproductive BMC guidebook department is actually really good for me.

Alan

In reply to Chris Tan Ver. LI - On the Bog:

Well I volunteered to proofread scripts for Over the Moors about 3 weeks ago, and I've since had none.

Moreover, I wrote 2 crag scripts over 3 years ago, and have had no feedback on either.

Don't hold your breath, folks.

In reply to Chris Craggs:



If anyone's doing Tanky's Trog this year then that's a great photo of the middle section!
http://www.penninefellrunners.co.uk/tankys.htm

In reply to martin k:

Incidentally, I think the work you have done on the Moors' guide over recent years is nothing short of magnificent - credit where credit is due!


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:

It's worth considering how some places have changed, maybe some places will return to nature, but when you consider how places like the Churnet have come back to life with the new guidebooks from the BMC then you realise that "probably" isn't really an excuse for excluding somwehere.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

More assumptions. The problem was more to do with stuff like what happened to the crag author on the A6 with Water Buffalo category or crags that were going to get a shorter treatment but looked good if clean or whole new crags, or dirty two and three star routes. Some routes may well return to obscurity but we look to emphasise that with character as we see it. So not every route got climbed and this was made clear at the Glossup BMC meet with the treatment of Harthill Quarry (where I've now actually climbed a route thanks to Fiend agreeing to join me).

Peregrinations would be the school teacher in you, eh? (I had to look it up)? In the sense I think you mean it, we've only done this when the hold up is something or somewhere else.

In reply to Duncan I:

3/ Because of access problems in the past meaning the crag has fallen off the 'radar' even though the problems are now resolved

In reply to Alan James - UKC:
Hi Alan,
Much as I generally admire Rockfax productions, I really must take exception to your comments about starting the North of England guide with a blank sheet of paper!I just dont believe it!
All guide writers start by looking at existing guides, and the Rockfax task was made even easier, as by the nature of selective guides, you have cherry picked
regards
Bob

In reply to Toreador:

4) because the crag intro in the previous guidebook was unduly negative.
5) because the guidebook description to find or follow the climb was ambiguous or wrong.
6) becuase the grades are not very accurate and climbing there is more anxious.
7) because people act like lemmings and mainly go to the same old places when they should probably explore more (not the same as reason 2, as people know its not crap but still don't go very often)

I'm sure there are more...

In reply to Offwidth and others:

The excuses for the non appearance of guides are just that - excuses. They may well be very valid, but they are also happen with virtually every guidebook. The problem seems to be that no-one has any sense of realism when it comes to publishing dates, and the system runs around in denial until the clamours from the public become impossible to ignore any longer

It is still happening. In Offwidth's and my wager he acknowledges that his bet of three BMC books by the end of 2009 is not "a safe bet" yet the recently reappraised page on the BMC site is still claiming four books for 2009 which someone closely connected with the system doesn't even believe.

The PR benefit the BMC could get by realistic publication dates is huge, yet I am certain we will be back here in 12 month's time hearing the same excuses.

My predictions:

Froggatt - mid 2009
Over the Moors - nip in before Xmas 2009
Lancashire Rock - mid/late 2010
Cheshire Sandstone - late/mid 2010
Leicester climbs - 2011
Peak Limestone - 2012 at the earliest for the first volume

Prove me wrong.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC: I can't be the only peraon on here wondering whether there isn't some sort of conflict of interest going on. You're a direct competitor to the BMC and slagging them off on here under the guise of being a BMC member is unconvincing. If Niall Grimes started a similar thread how would that be received? You obviously know *your* costs, but unless you have access to commercialy sensitive info about the BMC guides, you are just guessing. I think you should just leave this well alone. I am guessing that excellent BMC guides are really not what you want to see, and you are trying to sow unrest and disatisfaction.

In reply to Robert Bennett:

The benefit of starting with a digital copy of all the route information is huge. That is what I mean by a blank sheet of paper.

Alan

In reply to Aiden Wright:

I acknowledge that conflict of interest. I may just be guessing but I can guess very accurately since I have intimate access to my own figures of very similar products.

I am not trying to sow unrest - these threads were all started by other people. I know the pitfalls of unrealistic publications schedules and know the benefits of getting it right - we hit our dates within a month every time nowadays, but Northern Limestone was a protracted PR disaster back in 2003/4.

Yes, bad BMC guides are a benefit to me however I personally would prefer good ones that appear when they say they will.

You are probably right in that I should keep well away but I can't help myself. Also, there are plenty of other people asking these questions at the moment only not on this forum.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

It is actually 5 books for 2009!

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Alan,

I'm interested as to what you would like to see change. You started off on this thread asking if anyone was taking responsibility for production; this implied to me that you thought the deadlines were reasonable and were being missed because the process is flawed.

Later on you seem to suggest that all you ask is for accurate publication dates, but you also complain of an 'unproductive' BMC guidebook department, which suggests that you expect more publications coming from the BMC.

Are you genuinely unhappy with the process? Think the BMC should publish more rapidly, for less money? Or do you just want more accurate publication dates?

I'm genuinely interested in what you perceive as being wrong. As an aside, however, it's interesting to see you take the moral high ground here. Rockfax have hit their publication deadlines (near as dammit) in recent years, but I've been unhappy with SOME of the guides I've bought from you. The Mallorca guide is a fine example; i went to Mallorca with it about a week after getting it in the post. Some of the information about access and bolts was inaccurate (i.e Port Soller), whilst the new crags were so sketchily described, with topos full of question marks for grades and stars as to be largely redundant. As I'd bought the guide for the new info, I was a bit miffed about that! Now, many of your guides are excellent, but in a few cases I wish you had missed your deadlines and actually checked (and re-checked) the info in the guides...

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

"In Offwidth's and my wager he acknowledges that his bet of three BMC books by the end of 2009 is not "a safe bet" yet the recently reappraised page on the BMC site is still claiming four books for 2009 which someone closely connected with the system doesn't even believe."

That's because the BMC plans don't have a rigid schedule: I've seen how projects can come and go and change priority, dependant on the situation. It's certainly not because I think they are incompetant at planning. I see a sensible, flexible approach to a largely volunteer based workforce and a commitment to quality within sensible constraints, including budget.

In reply to Chris Craggs:



Your right - some of them are crap and probably will fade into obscurity. But let me ask people this - for example...

...Did anyone honestly understand where all the routes went at Rowtor in the 1996 Chatsworth Guide, cos I bloomin well didn't have a clue!

Jim Rubery's hotch potch of higgldy-piggldyness needed unpicking by several of us in the team which has now provided new routes and some fine directions...(you can tell him I said that too Chris!!)

There are other area's where the guide totally undersold many routes and venues (Dobb Edge - Which I wrote & you transcribed par example) and I for one think that trying to get Climbers away from the Honeypots to these more esoteric areas can only be a good thing - non?

Si

In reply to jhenryb:


Duckstones is very good John, I've just not had chance to check properly with Froggatt being more pressing like...

Si

In reply to midgets of the world unite:

Hi Stuart

It is a bit of both.

There is no doubt that current BMC productivity is very low. Five new guides in 6 years since a full-time Guidebook co-ordinator was appointed, one of which was finished before the appointment, and one of which required only a limited amount of production work, is poor by anyone's standards. When you compare it to the Climbers' Club who have managed 13 volunteer-produced definitive guides in the same time period, without the full-time employee, it really does look very bad. So, yes, the BMC should certainly publish more books, more frequently and I am not the only person who thinks this. I don't get the relevance of your less money comment.

The accuracy of the publication dates is more of a side issue of mine since I have made the same mistake myself in the past. When we got it right in 2005 we went from 3 books every two years to 4 books a year with an increase in quality. I can see though that other people might not be bothered about this although I think claiming that you are aiming for 5 books in 2009, when you have only manage 5 in the previous 6 years does push the boundaries of credibility, and will only store problems up when the books inevitably don't appear.


Yes there are sections that are weak in our Spanish guides and we could wait until we are able to get accurate details ourselves, but then we would never publish most of them. Actually getting local information on hard crags in Spain is nearly impossible and getting someone to check all the top standard routes would not only take forever, the information would probably be a waste of time.

Our policy is to publish what we have at a time when the book is in demand, and then work on improving the next edition. This way there is always information available. I can assure that people complain a lot more about books that aren't available than they do about 8a's that might be 8b.

Your characterisation of the new information in the Mallorca guide is over-stated. Accurate approach information, plus a reasonable guide to what sort of climbing to expect including a clear photo of the crag is not 'largely redundant', plus there are plenty of fully described crags that have never appeared in a book before. The nature of access information means that it can change at any stage and no book is going to be accurate forever or even at the time of publication. The guy who lives at Gubia blocked the approach path while out guide was at the printers, for example.

Alan

In reply to Offwidth:

They should do.

Knowing that the next edition of Eastern Grit will be required in October 2013 makes it so much easier to actually make the next edition of Eastern Grit appear in October 2013.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Just going off at a tangent here, but just wondering if any BMC members were unaware of this. Or are unhappy at this.

I think it's pretty well known that the BMC employs a guidebook co-ordinator and that not all guidebooks are self-financing. But I would say that a lot of members like and respect the fact that the BMC produces definitive guidebooks that might not otherwise exist.

I may not want to climb in Leicestershire, or own the guidebook, but I am quite happy for the BMC to spend money on it's publication.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I suspect plenty are unaware but, I agree, even if they were aware then they might not think it was an issue.

They might care more though if they knew that, with a more efficient system, there would no need to subsidise guides and still produce the same quality of production.

I doubt if many of them know that.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:
I thought all the guidebooks stuff was supposed to be ring-fenced in some way?

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

So you state what you know even though I say I know some of it must be wrong and vice versa? We have a disagreement. You still haven't answered the key point that Stuart (Midgets) makes of where is the big improvement in efficiency going to come from?

In the meantime peak climbers have great guidebooks and most seem happy. Quite a few are not but keeping all of the climbers happy all of the time is impossible.

In reply to Offwidth:

I don't think Stuart did ask that, but I'd be happy to tell you sometime. This forum isn't the best place though.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC: 'Are the BMC members aware that they are effectively subsidising guidebook production to a large extent with their membership fees?'

Whereas the profits from the CC guides subsidise the costs of their huts.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Stuart said "I'm interested as to what you would like to see change." and "I'm genuinely interested in what you perceive as being wrong."

The problem is that an experienced guidebook producer like you saying that the BMC guidebooks must be making a loss and should be producing more guides per year means you think we are being very inefficient. However, I've seen just how efficient Stanage was.. ie the process on a well known, easy to access, recently checked, mainly quick drying and easy to photograph crag. I can also see why the new Froggatt/Chatsworth is so much slower despite even some lessons learnt from Stanage!

Still I'm always interested to learn, so see you in the Grouse for the next peak meet or sometime after.

In reply to Offwidth:

Well maybe then instead of me you should ask the Climbers' Club. 13 volunteer-produced definitive guides in 6 years while embracing a new presentation style is indeed very impressive. Most of them cover cliffs far less accessible than Stanage as well.


I'll be there.

Alan

In reply to John2:

... and your point is?

In reply to Alan James - UKC: My point is that volunteers can produce guides without being subsidised by membership fees.

In reply to John2: I would be interested to know how much profit the BMC has made from guides or alternatively the loss per guide.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

What a difference a year makes! The CC endured massive criticism for the delay in producing the Gogarth guide - some of it justified, but as Alan says volunteer teams with sufficient support from both inside and outside the organization can work wonders.
By far the best way to deal with critics is to admit the shortcomings and then produce the goods, which the CC have now done and the transformation continues with a further clutch of new guides very close to publication.
The BMC record does not look good, especially as they have a professional maestro at the helm. The fact is that Rockfax, CC, BMC, in fact any guidebook publisher is producing a product. If that product appears on time, is fit for purpose and available at a price the customer is prepared to pay, it will be successful. If it doesn't it won't. My experience is that the most climbers are not particularly interested in how much devotion and hard work has gone into a guide, the wrong sort of rain on the crags, or internal rows amongst the production team, they want to hand out hard earned cash for something that will help them get out climbing.

In reply to Chris the Tall:




Tis a good point...

...although I say when the book comes out we go & check it out - to justify your membership fee!!

;0)

In reply to Iain Peters:

I guess history will tell how good or bad the BMC guidebook production was in this period. Of course Alan hasn't said anything here about how things could be done differently and as always I look forward to his private views.

This book is late but nothing like as spectacularly as some guidebooks have been and the sections of guides it replaces are still in print.

In reply to Offwidth:

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's held off buying the current guides for the last 3 years or so, on the basis that the new ones were about to be published. So they've talked themselves out of sales by getting the estimates so badly wrong.

Personally I'm glad they've learned from the mistakes of previous guides, and waited to get all the obscure stuff in that was known about. But I'd have thought there was enough recent experience to have got the dates rather closer than they (will) have turned out!

And there always has to be a cut-off date, if that date arrives shortly after another batch of esoterica has been unearthed then further delays become counter-productive. What happens if you discover a new super Crag X++ in the next few weeks - another delay?

In reply to Offwidth:

Froggatt was at the top of the agenda when I was working on Western Grit v1, and that was published in 2003 - so it is pretty late really!

I also remember meeting Pete Robins on Curbar in about 2000 when he was working on the Curbar manuscript and I was on with PGE!

Chris

In reply to Toreador:

I was just making a point about perspective: this delay is hardly the same as some of the previous notorious delays to some guides. We are all sorry to make you wait but don't want to finish such a significant effort with a partial mess through over rushing the final touches. The really keen climbers who were desperate to see whats going on or wanted to help speed things up have contacted us (and Martin on the Moorland team) and have been busy checking and can still do so on the Moors and some of the later projects.

In reply to Offwidth:

And its also worth pointing out that (up to a point) the more people contribute, the quicker these things can get done

Support your local guidebook production!

PP.

In reply to PontiusPirate:

I've been waiting for 2 years now for the first proofs to check

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Just going back to this comment Chris...


Are you acknowledging here that the BMC guidebooks don't make money?

... or put another way, have BMC guidebooks made money over the last 7 years?

There may be plenty of people who are happy with the BMC subsidising guidebooks but, as far as I was aware, guidebooks have always been accounted as a revenue stream for the BMC, not a liability.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

I think you know that he means not every single guidebook may end up making a profit but this will be covered overall from good income from the most popular guides. This is hardly new for any definitive guidebook producer. I know you think any guidebook should make a profit and that you think you know how to do this.

In reply to Toreador

Out of interest, waiting for two years for proofs from who?

In reply to Chris Craggs:


I was working on Yarncliffe in 2000 - but then I'm a volunteer & have a day job, not sure you can compare how Rockfax works & how the BMC Team do?

I admit that I'm as desperate to see this guide in print as anyone, and giving false production dates has been folly, however getting it right is worth a delay, rather than a half baked effort that will almost certainly come in for criticism.

Unfortunately there is a saddening trend these days of arm chair critics as its easier to do such than support it seems...

In reply to Simon:


You were doing great there Simon until you came out with the last line.

There is another saddening trend these days, that those who come in for valid criticism or are given advice, instantly label those giving it as armchair critics.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:



Very true Mick, advice is always appreciated & we are always learning.

One factor that we haven't taken into account in all this is the British weather, have we not had the two most crappiest summers recently? This has made pushes for scripts sporadic at best, and downright nigh on impossible at some locations.

I'm not asking for tea & sympathy over brickbats, just, as one boy band once said, try & have a little patience.

...see you at the launch when it happens!

Si

In reply to Alan James:


What I'm suggesting is that BMC guides serve a wider purpose than merely making money. Now I know that Rockfax does produce some definitive guides, and is fairly definitive for many of the crags in it's Peak guides. But you guys don't try to cover every last buttress in each hole in the ground quarry - it wouldn't be commercially viable. Many would see it as part of the BMC's role to be the guardians of the definitive record.

Actually what I was really trying to do was to gauge whether people were happy for the BMC to take this approach, or whether is should be more market driven.

In reply to Chris the Tall: I'm happy for the BMC to produce guidebooks at a loss but would like to know what is the loss (if they do make a loss) per book?

In reply to Chris the Tall:
Many would see it as part of the BMC's role to be the guardians of the definitive record.



...or in fact that after this run on Peak guides - will they be the last in current format judging by the complications & definitive collections?

...I'm thinking they might just be...

si

In reply to Mr Ree:

If you account for it book by book, and ignore the guidebook co-ordinator's salary, then no BMC book should ever get anywhere near making a loss unless it only sells around half its print run before being superseded (this was probably the case with the grey Stanage guide of 2002, and probably also with the Wye Valley thing although I don't have figures for either of these). Otherwise no book would get anywhere near making an actual loss - it just isn't an issue if you get the print run right, and after nearly 40 years of producing guidebooks to the same areas, the BMC shouldn't be getting print runs wrong.

However, as soon as you bring the guidebook co-ordinator's salary into the equation, then the books need to suddenly cover a big yearly fixed cost. This is why the time it takes for these books to appear is such a huge issue since the book sales figure of the accounts needs new books introducing to keep the sales levels up to cover the salary. Since many of the books pre-2001 are old and will have near-negligible sales these days, the general accounting can pretty well be calculated on the books produced since 2001. In this case I can assure you that there aren't enough books to cover a full-time salary.

However they could easily if the books appeared a bit faster.

Alan

In reply to Chris the Tall:

The reason I asked is that, as far as I am aware, no-one has ever asked the question you just asked, nor have guidebooks ever been treated as one of the BMC services that run up a cost since, until 2001, BMC guidebooks made money by the bucket-full.

Has there actually been a change in policy on this one?

Alan

PS. Commercial viability isn't why Rockfax don't produce guides to holes in the ground.

In reply to Mr Ree:
I was going to suggest looking at the BMC website for the annual accounts, but I can't find them !!!!

However some of the figures regarding guidebooks are commercially sensitive - you never know when rival guidebook producers might be watching

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Or if Niall was responsible for other BMC duties so his full salary isn't covered by guidebook sales, or if the new guidebooks are selling faster than you think, or if the work done on the other unpublished guides was further advanced than you think, or a few other things I could think of but would want to say publicly. All unknowns at present.

As for print runs...its no secret for the 5th series (pre Grimer) that that popoular guides like On Peak Rock, Roaches, Stanage and Froggatt needed further editons and or reprints, when others didn't.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I'm talking about policy, not figures. I would have thought that a significant policy change like this is something that members should have been made aware of.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

"Has there actually been a change in policy on this one?"

Yes, you know this: they employed Niall and improved the way the books looked and could be used and how quickly they sold.

In reply to Offwidth:

Unknown by who? I would thought that these are all fully 'knowns' to Chris and yet he is asking if the members are happy subsidising guidebooks.


Not sure what you point is here.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:
It's certainly not the BMC's policy to lose money on guidebooks, but since the appearance of professional rivals it has been harder to make the sort of money it used to !

However the future of BMC guides has been discussed at area meetings (and at national council) and the consensus has always been that the BMC shouldn't give up. And I've got the impression that the need to maintain definitive guides has always been regarded by the members as being more important than the profit/loss accounting. The change in policy was to employ someone on a professional basis

Nonetheless I would argue that the BMC's involvement in guides is one of the good things that it does, and one of the many reasons why every climber should be a member of it.....

P.S. For the record (and as a guidebook geek) I think Rockfax has done a great job in raising the standards of guidebook production, and the BMC has done a great job in raising to the challenge with it's latest guides.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Fair enough.

I think the questions being asked on this thread and elsewhere are useful though. I agree that the end products from virtually all UK guidebook publishers are excellent, however they still need to be efficient. I think the efficiency of the system is what is most in question with regard to BMC guides.

Being stuck half way between a fully commercial model that does fine (Rockfax) and a fully volunteer model that does fine (Climbers' Club) doesn't seem to be a very comfortable position.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Not quite - I'm asking if they would be happy to subsidise guidebooks, it's more of a theorectical question

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Unknowns in your calculations you seem so certain about.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

My point on print runs was its obvious the BMC had got it at least slighty wrong at times in the fairly recent past. Again you must know this so its odd you are saying things like: "and after nearly 40 years of producing guidebooks to the same areas, the BMC shouldn't be getting print runs wrong.". They won't be the first or the last guidebook producer to do that but getting it wrong on quality with higher base costs in a much more competetive market on a guide that should sell well would be a problem.

"Being stuck half way between a fully commercial model that does fine (Rockfax) and a fully volunteer model that does fine (Climbers' Club) doesn't seem to be a very comfortable position." agghhh the pain!!!!!

In reply to Offwidth:

Guidebooks have remarkably predictable selling patterns. Each edition will sell roughly in the same numbers as the last edition with a general upward trend. Armed with 40 years of figures it is easy to get it right, and I would say the BMC has got the print runs about right over the last 40 years. What they have got wrong is producing the new edition on time. For example: Derwent Gritstone was produced with a decent print run in 1985. That sold out and 'Froggatt' appeared in 1991 with around a 6 year print run. The fact that the new edition is still being produced is hardly a fault of the people who decided how many to print in 1991.


Still don't understand your point here.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

"What they have got wrong is producing the new edition on time."

I think you mean what you think they have got wrong. It may be semantics, as I'm agreeing that we didn't publish when we wanted to and we do regret this and apologise for people having to be patient for a little longer, but not everyone agrees the problems associated with this are as big as you appear to think.

"Still don't understand your point here."

In a nutshell we made a decision to hold the guidebook until we are happy with the quality (good enough remember.. not perfection) rather than publishing it - to use a fun metaphor - 'papering over some cracks'. I think this also makes commercial sense, as a guidebook with such problems can get bad reviews, an unfair reputation, and lower sales than maybe it deserves.

"Being stuck half way between a fully commercial model that does fine (Rockfax) and a fully volunteer model that does fine (Climbers' Club) doesn't seem to be a very comfortable position."

Fighting the pain of discomfort and thinking about this overnight: Rockfax must also be somewehere between fully commercial and fully volunteer as without unpaid climbers volunteering information, plus help from existing definitive guidebooks based on volunteer input where do many of your grades, descriptions and route checkers come from?

In reply to Offwidth:

Well that is another issue which you can bring up on another thread if you wish (however I think we have covered it several times before).

I didn't mean this as negatively as you have taken it. What I meant was that the BMC has taken on some of the trappings of a fully professional publishing company, whilst also retaining some of the features associated with volunteer-produced books. The higher costs required to cover the wage bill haven't been accompanied by an increase in productivity. One of the reasons for this could well be the problems associated with working with large groups of volunteers with different motivation and ability levels, providing content in any number of different formats. It's probably all good stuff but a right pain to edit.

This would be an area where I would suggest the BMC could start introducing big efficiency improvements.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

We are starting to get down to it now (and dont worry I'm not taking offense just defending our position and as ever I can't resist the odd bad pun/joke)

On productivity the situation is not as simplistic as the number of guides produced per year. The BMC have taken on a much more labour intensive format with this series (full colour, a more complex layout with photo topos). For the main Peak definitive guides the books are also much bigger. The current guidebook we are discussing has well over double the content of the total of the two previous guidebooks it overlaps with (it includes 95% of the previous Chatsworth guide content and about 45% of the previous Froggatt, plus new crags, new routes, and a shed load of bouldering and proportionally more 'features'.). Maybe the new bumper sizes are a mistake in terms of production schedules (I do wonder now how many average CC sized guides it would add up to?) but the result should be splendid, great value in the area covered (like the previous and forthcoming volumes) and the decision to split things this way is history.

"the problems associated with working with large groups of volunteers with different motivation and ability levels" I'd see this as a glass-half full situation...the joys and the character that result are ahead of the problems...great team, impressive results.

In reply to Offwidth:

Stop mincing your words and say what you mean - hrrummmpphh!


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:

I mean that everyone in guidebook production relies on help from the climbing community, so in a sense there is probably no such thing as fully commercial. The smaller the guidebook team the harder it is to check everything but the easier it is to coordinate stuff. You currently use one model, we another. There is no slight intended here other than the difference

I know you and Alan work very hard and care very much about making your products as good and as accurate as possible within your model.

Alan from above: "Yes there are sections that are weak in our Spanish guides and we could wait until we are able to get accurate details ourselves, but then we would never publish most of them. Actually getting local information on hard crags in Spain is nearly impossible and getting someone to check all the top standard routes would not only take forever, the information would probably be a waste of time. Our policy is to publish what we have at a time when the book is in demand, and then work on improving the next edition."

In reply to Offwidth:
Dear Mr Offwidth

You really should get out of the Peak more.


I would tell you but I don't think there is an 'average' CC guide, Clogwyn Du’r Arddu is 192 pages Meirionnydd is 512 pages, The Sandstone Outcrops of the Forest of Dean is 184, West Cornwall is 472. At least two of those look like ‘bumper sizes’.


Exactly what the CC have done also, have you noticed the 5 guides printed in the last two years in full colour with photo topos and loads more maps and action photos?


Care to take a look at the Meirionnydd guide, everything from the old Mid-Wales guide, some very remote mountain crags in there, plus a brand new area, Rhinogau, that had never been in a guidebook before. Also, published more recently, a brand new guide to an area that had never appeared in print before, The Sandstone Outcrops of the Forest of Dean.


How hard? Compared to what? To mention a few:
Lundy (hard to access sea cliffs in a place where you can only climb part of the year and you have pre-book both your transport and accommodation just to get there before you even start guidebook work)
Clogwyn Du’r Arddu (good climbing conditions for only part of the year, routes often in poor condition and very weather dependent)
Lleyn (some of the most serious and inaccessible climbing outside of Scotland)
North Devon and Cornwall (also numerous difficult to access crags with tricky tides)

Let’s take an easy benchmark, the year 2000, the millennium, between then and now the CC have published 15 guidebooks, with no professional paid officer support. Just keen dedicated volunteers backed up by experienced production workers and included in that the introduction of a new all-colour design. Have you seen the reviews of the Lundy and Southern Sandstone guides?

In reply to S11: 'Also, published more recently, a brand new guide to an area that had never appeared in print before, The Sandstone Outcrops of the Forest of Dean'

Not true, these crags did appear in an earlier edition of the Wye Valley guide. I well remember tracking them down more than a decade ago.

In reply to John2: Not quite true, yes, some of the 'crags' had appeared in other guides before, many hadn't. But my point is, and if you read exactly what I've writen you'll see that it's an 'area' that had not been covered before in its own dedicated printed guidebook.

In reply to S11:

Its hard to escape from the peak when you are tied to a Millstone but I have a pass to Joshua Tree next month

I just re-read what I wrote about (obviously in too much haste) and the size comparison doesn't come over the way I intended, for which I apologise. I wasn't getting at CC production (which is frankly brilliant) I was just trying to point out 'a book' is an over simplistic and sometime inaccurate measuring stick of the important things like effort, worth, information content etc.