UKC

Does this signal the decline of the BMC? Are we letting down ambassadors like Shauna Coxsey and Matthew Phillips? Is this the BMC’s Corbyn moment?

I can only hope that unlike Corbyn’s Labour, the constitution, governance and leadership of the BMC is strong enough to stop activists protesting it into insignificance.

A Saturday spent looking at annual reports, Sport England stats and writing about the BMC...

https://johnroberts.me/outdoors/2017/03/is-this-the-british-mountaineering-...

In reply to JR: I think we all now know what the way forward is

JR for BMC President!!!!

By my reckoning I think we have 48 hours before nominations close...







In all seriousness, a great article which very concisely sets out the issues facing the BMC.

The point about partnerships with climbing walls is especially well made. It would be fantastic if every annual climbing wall membership also included BMC membership via the climbing wall, but I can see that sort of initiative providing even more ammunition for the perpetual gripes from a minority of individual members about the apparent "subsidy" to club members.

As to points about the "value proposition", I share your view. I certainly view my membership(s) as a donation and making a fair contribution, rather than something of intrinsic or immediate value. Let's not forget that the UK's largest mountaineering organisation left the BMC several years ago over not feeling that they got value for money.

Quite frankly the way forward is to make everyone, indoor climbers, outdoor climbers and hillwalkers feel that they SHOULD be members of the BMC and it is just expected. However that certainly won't happen by increasing membership fees. In fact, I think the exact opposite should happen, individual membership fee should be slashed to perhaps £20.

At the same time I think profile of ACT could be massively raised and the whole climbing and hillwalking community enthused about supporting access via specific charitable donations (and obviously volunteering). I'd be nice if many climbers' blatant preoccupation with virtue signalling could be channelled into something to do with climbing and not with displaying worthy but ultimately trivial and self evident logos at seemingly every opportunity.

Finally, as I mentioned on a previous thread I am certainly going to vote (by proxy) against any potential no confidence vote.

Anyway, I'd better stop writing and actually sort my gear out as I'm off to Swanage tomorrow. Some of us do manage to climb both indoors (today) and outdoors interchangeably without feeling either is intrinsically more worthy or challenging.

In reply to JR:

Good article John

In reply to The Ex-Engineer:


IMHO, no decent wall would even consider charging an annual membership!

In reply to Oceanrower:


It should be free? Or no discount over monthly? Or what?

In reply to climbwhenready:

Annual membership should be free, yes. Give a discount for direct debit, charge more for peak, whatever,

Charging a fee just for the privilege of being allowed to come for another year? Nah.

In reply to climbwhenready:

Though I think we may be talking at cross purposes. By Annual Membership, I mean having to pay a fee just to be allowed to climb. If somebody wants to buy 12 months direct debit up front, then fair enough.

In reply to Oceanrower:

I meant the latter. I thought it was obvious, but I do know some walls have various charging schemes including registration or membership fees.

My point was that adding perhaps £15-£20 to what is commonly around £300+ would hopefully not be a completely unreasonable or implausible proposition. (Bearing in mind the BMC already has a system to refund duplicate memberships.)

Continuing the line of argument of John's article, if the BMC cannot make future membership relevant to the cohort of fairly committed indoor climbers (and gain the strong and widespread support of the indoor climbing industry) then it has little hope of truly prospering in the long term.

I'd hate climbing to go the way of orienteering where BOF membership is effectively compulsory but they certainly don't have the issue of a derisory 4% membership rate...

>Cheers Let's not forget that the UK's largest mountaineering organisation left the BMC several years ago over not feeling that they got value for money

Which organization was this?

In reply to Oceanrower:

Yes, I think we were!

In reply to The Ex-Engineer:
"It would be fantastic if every annual climbing wall membership also included BMC membership via the climbing wall," does anything stop a wall forming a club and seeking BMC membership?

"but I can see that sort of initiative providing even more ammunition for the perpetual gripes from a minority of individual members about the apparent "subsidy" to club members."

I guess that is matched by what looks like similar behavior from some big clubs about comparative fees to individuals. I for one will continue to question this balance. You can call it a gripe but I see it as an important debate. From what I can see the BMC looks to be providing club membership pretty much at cost whereas individuals make clearly much larger proportional contributions. The BMC came from the big clubs and clubs do their own good work in much the same way as the BMC does, albeit at a smaller scale, so I can forgive a differential, but the BMC needs to make some profit on club income. If clubs leave from this position of a highly discounted membership I view it as shameful. The value to everyone is in their backing of the good work of the BMC, not what they get back in return.

In reply to The Ex-Engineer:
Let's not forget that the UK's largest mountaineering organisation left the BMC several years ago over not feeling that they got value for money.

Who was that?

It almost sounds as if you are proposing a climbing tax to support the BMC. I am not clear why I SHOULD be a member. However if people valued the BMC they WOULD be members.
I also feel the term 'member' needs unpacking. It implies something social and being part of something. Putting something in, other than money. Not just taking out. Engagement.
I do not feel a member of the BMC, more a customer forced to pay in (via club fees) to an organisation that does little for me and gives me poor value.

In reply to Lenin:

"needs unpacking" Bingo!

In reply to Lenin:
I dislike a customer model and prefer an engagement one. The most important work of the BMC is more charitable than commercial based. John's analysis misses out the volunteer base. Because of the nature of the organisation the BMC has a very significant volunteer base dealing with organisational functions, access issues, cleaning crags, helping with guidebooks, etc, that if fully costed would be massively more than the paid staff. The risk of that volunteering base being damaged by the BMC becoming too commercially focussed is arguably the biggest risk of all.

My view is this is a storm that is largely manufactured. The BMC is mainly doing a really good job but there will always be tensions across and between the main areas under its remit. The draft of the no confidence motion (visible on UKB... link below) was plain bonkers and discredits the individuals who allowed their names to be attached. The future of the BMC is always going to contain uncertainty and more debate but that is normal, not something to fear.

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php?topic=27760.300

I don't even believe there is a clear trend in the BMC membership falling behind participation. The BBC show that looks at dodgy statistical analysis, More or Less, would have a field day with extrapolations from two data points that may have methodological issues, in the context of the largest growth area (hill walking) being a relatively new focus of the BMC and within climbing, indoor showing the biggest growth (and outdoors sport is likely proportionately the biggest growth area, followed by bouldering). The BMC does need to ensure it retains currency and a fair balance across its areas of remit but it won't do that with the naval gazing of those behind the no confidence issue.

In reply to Offwidth:

As per our subsequent debate, my analysis is intended to create engagement and enablement of volunteers, by creating value at the core, certainly no intention to disenfranchise them. If people that can't give time aren't willing to pay £31.50 to support those that can give time, the "product" has a value perception problem. Not everyone can, or is willing to, give the time you can and do.

In reply to The Ex-Engineer:
"Of course these figures include a broad range: Climbing & mountaineering: climbing indoor, climbing rock, mountaineering, mountaineering high altitude, hill trekking, hill walking, bouldering, mountain walking, which are all within the BMC’s remit"

I think when we talk about increasing participation vs BMC membership a key part of the answer is right here. Few people join an organisation because of its catchy name or branding, they join it because it does things that are relevant to them. Indoor climbing and in particular indoor bouldering are the biggest growth areas by far, and indoor bouldering in particular at my local wall is a really popular activity which attracts a wide range of people who use it as a gym alternative without ever wanting to go outdoors to a crag. So my question is why would people who only ever climb or boulder indoors in a controlled environment want to join the BMC? Access isnt an issue for them, safety (and so insurance) isnt really a major issue, and training is provided by paid courses at the wall. I think its only when you go into the outdoors and the environment and access becomes more uncertain and the risks and training needs greater that you start realising the value of the BMC. So maybe if the BMC wants to attract people from the indoor walls what it needs to do is encourage people to look beyond the climbing walls and move into the outdoor world? Maybe work with climbing walls, put up posters, organise talks to show people the adventures climbing can take them to, and show them that these are accessable to ordinary mortals not just superfit athletes? And how many threads do we see on ukc started by people who would quite like to move from indoor to outdoor climbing but dont know how to make the transition? I think this is the sort of the area where the BMC can connect with people and they will see its value

In reply to Dan Arkle:


Army Mountaineering Association at a guess?

In reply to Offwidth:

#altfacts

You could argue the validity of any stats, but I suspect included as an aggregation of other proxy measures (chalk or climbing shoe sales for example), the same trend (with varying rates) would been shown; that membership growth is stastically significantly lower than participation growth.

In reply to JR:
Not everyone with BMC membership pays £31.50 and as I've said, annecdotally in my experience, most who do seem pretty happy with their monetary value for but to them thats beside the point they think the main value is they are supporting the good work of the BMC. As per our debate elsewhere I think your analysis is useful but trends are still not proven and value is tricky to pin down.

I am unusual, but along with my fellow unusuals we put in more beneficial activity for the BMC than the full subscription income. Others don't give their time but donate directly to the access fund. We can't be ignored in any analysis of risks.

In reply to JR:
I am telling you that is not shown at all in those stats. Even if we trust the methodology and data, we have to take into account that the BMC has proportionately a lot more climbers in its membership than hillwalkers and proportionately more outdoor climbers than indoor. That participation growth is two data points on the whole cummulative related participation group. If you looked at modelling that for a fair breakdown, the BMC membership growth, given its different breakdown in the sub groups may well be pretty much the same as in recent years. I've not seen shoe sale data but indoor numbers are more than outdoor, so care needs to be taken in just using that data. To be clear, there could well be a trend that the BMC is falling behind but that graph on its own does not give me any confidence that evidence of any such trend is significant.

The BMC is taking clear actions to improve its relevance to hillwalkers and indoor climbers so is already responding in the right way to a changing 'market'.

In reply to Offwidth:

Let's see the stats then! Even so, none of that invalidates an analysis that concludes that a solution could be refactoring subscription packages to make them more attractive to the subsets of potential members.

Having to put prices up (as you have said is going to happen) to react to plug a gap, before being able to react, is a late reaction, but I'm confident the team are aware of the challenges.

In reply to The Ex-Engineer:


Serious question: what relevance does the BMC have to climbing walls, and to those people who pursue climbing as purely an 'indoor' endeavour?

I can see that climbing walls as a business might appreciate the fact that the BMC encourages the activity - which implies more paying customers - but, other than that?

In reply to JR:
Are there any stats? You can illustrate my point easily enough. Lets say predominant hillwalkers form 20% of the BMC but 80% of the participation group. Climber numbers don't grow but predominant hillwalkers increase by 10%. Participation growth will be 8% but BMC growth for similar matched growth in both areas would be 2%.

Sub increases or cost reductions are required if the organisation needs to balance the books, more requirement than reaction if members don't wish the service to change. SE funding drops so something else has to increase.

In reply to Offwidth:

You previously said:


You know this how?


No, subscription REVENUE (or cost reductions) must increase to balance the books.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Apart from the personal safety, training, comps and options for progression to outdoors, the BMC has for a very long time played a critical role in determining and disseminating best practice climbing wall design and management, and working with climbing walls to maintain responsible but not onerous registration and admission procedures that are acceptable to all climbers. There is an industry body too (ABC) which is also closely involved, but the perceived independence of the BMC from commercial pressures is important when it comes to resolving possible litigation.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Insurance, equipment safety, competition support, participation advice to aid improvement whilst avoiding injury. Dealing with crackpot politicians with a daft scare story....

In reply to JR:
The BMC has stats... what I would call predominant hillwalkers (people who mainly just hillwalk) are in a minority but those who's main activity is hillwalking (but many of whom might climb a fair bit as a minority interest) I think from memory are about the same as the numbers of those to whom climbing is a main or sole interest. I was really asking if the participation stats that show the increase can be broken down by group and matched to the very different proportions within the BMC membership. Indoor climber numbers are also increasing but the BMC has proportionately fewer of those as well. Your graphs do not show what you claim they do even if it turned out to be right if we had the full data.

In reply to Offwidth:


Let's get them public then...


Of this 2.14 million, it is broken down in the following way (sum total > 2.14 million due to overlap of participation in the breakdown categories):

1,967,788 hill walking
106,945 outdoor climbing
171,112 indoor climbing

That's where it is now on the latest Active Lives survey data, unfortunately:

a) don't have breakdown data from the Active People stats (it might be available)
b) can't do a direct comparison between Active People stats and Active Lives breakdown due to methodology changes


Not sure that sentence makes sense, nor the argument. They show overall participation has increased at a rate faster than membership, however you break it down. But I agree it should be looked at.

If I had had the breakdown numbers I'd have done a direct comparison of breakdown over time as you're suggesting, it took about 10 hours of reading, research, speaking to various folk, writing and editing to pull all that together and I couldn't find the stats publicly. If the BMC has the data, both membership segments and Active People breakdown data for the same period, then lets look at it. Without those stats, what you're saying is speculation.

In reply to Offwidth:


I asked them. I’m told:

The data doesn’t exist, but they’ve put in measures to track it. Membership surveys do exist, membership 2010 and hillwalking 2012, but you'd have to extrapolate from there.

So it might be fair to say what you’re saying is extrapolation and speculation, like what you're accusing the Sport England participation data of being.

In reply to The Ex-Engineer:


Or climbing walls give a discount to BMC members?

In reply to JR:

That's a well written article.

Having seen the motion of no confidence posted on UKB, I have to shake my head at the nonsense it contains. Although there are almost certainly problems within the BMC, as there are in any similarly large organisation they don't merit this sort of combative approach.

To call the Climb Britain thing "an unparalleled act of bad governance" simply isn't true - it's hyperbole of the highest order.

They drag up the issue of the money the CB thing cost the BMC, when it's been explained at length that Sport England paid for the process.

They also claim that paid members of staff (like what I used to be) can vote at Area Meetings. That isn't true.

Lastly, if Bob Pettigrew wants to remind us that he's got an MBE that's fine, but I can't help feeling he's attached that to make the whole proposal seem more meaningful than it is.

In reply to Offwidth:


If fees go up as proposed then individual member rates are going up proportionally by a couple of % more than club affiliate fees too, so it exacerbates that perception.


Agree

In reply to JR:


I see BMC membership has increased steadily over the years, so is it a bit odd that SE's largesse (and the possibility that it might not always be forthcoming) is the cause of a membership fee increase?

In reply to JR:

Actually I'm happy with the SE data. I'm just cautioning you that the conclusion YOU drew from the data that the BMC growth is falling behind participation growth cannot actually be shown from that data (as the BMC has a different proportions of the subgroups than the SE stats and where the growth is highest the BMC proportions are lowest). Talk to any statistician about this.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


You mean I have to raise my prices to none BMC members.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Sent you a fbook msg on this...

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

My wall does give a discount to BMC Members. I'd happily donate that to the BMC instead.
How about "Annual pass with free BMC membership" ?

In reply to john arran:


its not progression if you have no interest or intent on going outside. which, i would say is the vast majority of the new breed of casual indoor climber. at least in london.

the BMC has for a very long time played a critical role in determining and disseminating best practice climbing wall design and management, and working with climbing walls to maintain responsible but not onerous registration and admission procedures that are acceptable to all climbers. There is an industry body too (ABC) which is also closely involved, but the perceived independence of the BMC from commercial pressures is important when it comes to resolving possible litigation.

They're all very good arguments for the climbing wall itself having membership to the BMC, but i don't see how they're relevant to the individual user. I would expect any facility I use to be following best practice, I hardly see why I should have to pay a membership to support a separate organisation to offer advice on how to run their business properly.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Sounds reasonable to me

In reply to La benya:


You pay your taxes; some of which goes to fund the Health and Safety Executive......

In reply to Andy Say:

whats your point?

In reply to JR:

I think that your observation ' indoor climbing walls are the new clubs' is spot on. I think that some recognition of this came with the very recent BMC decision to reduce the number of people required to become an affiliated club; thus allowing relatively small groups (a youth squad for example) into the fold.

Perhaps walls could actually offer a 'club membership' as part of an annual subscription/fee?

In reply to Andy Say:

I am more likely to surcharge people with beards

In reply to La benya:

My point was that, like it or not, you are paying for a government agency to 'tell people how to run their business properly'. I thought that maybe it was a sort of parallel to what you were objecting to?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Get real, Graeme. You can't afford to lose the hipster community......

In reply to Andy Say:

The Foundry tried that years ago, The Foundry Climbing Association, £15 a year I think, idea was you got something like £1 off every visit and you would be a BMC Club member. I think the beards turned the idea down as they didn't like the idea of the biggest club being a wall.

Ironic when you consider one of the names on the list funded the opening of the Foundry

In reply to JR:

Oh, and I loved the first picture in your piece of the British Mountaineering Council 'board' outside the office.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


The door might be slightly more open now, though. There's less beards. And a lot less hair as well.

Purely as a matter of interest and not intending to demean people of older age, is there anyone on that list of people supporting the motion that is under 70? I don't think there is.

In reply to Andy Say:

hmmm, not sure the similarities are as close as you might hope.

In reply to JR:

I personally think the BMC has a lot to learn from the DAV in Germany. It owns or supports many excellent walls, maintains access and bolting/regearing of crags and coordinates a large organisation of volunteers that run coaching courses, kids groups and more. Climbers are largely incentivised to join through greatly reduced entrance fees in DAV walls and by other benefits such as personal rescue insurance.

The BMC is right to recognise the evolution of the climbing community and to take advantage of that shift. I personally see great benefit in further integration into climbing gyms and channelling of funds from the users of these facilities into other areas of climbing.

I personally find it ludicrous that a minority group of members who are realistically out of touch with the modern sport can cause such a storm.

In reply to Hugh Cottam:

Where is the list of names? I can't find it?

In reply to Andy Say:

I did " borrow" that from Grough as credited... although I could go and walk over and take another one if they tell me to take it down...

In reply to MischaHY:


Ironic that one of the names on the list offered the BMC The Foundry many years ago. The offer was turned down because the MLTB boys would have had further to travel, or that was the story doing the rounds.

In reply to JR:

No. I just liked the visual 'pun', board/Board

In reply to MischaHY:


One person's 'storm' is another person's 'discussion' - there are underlying issues here which are probably worth thinking about.

If you don't like the motion if (and when) it's finally tabled, just vote against it - it's quite simple.

In reply to MischaHY:
Indeed, purely speculative, but I suspect walls could get a kick back from the BMC for getting people to join via walls

It would need to be very carefully modelled, but you might be able to package it so that you wouldn't see a drop off from those that climb once or twice per month (where greatest participation growth likely is) with a small price rise. That alongside a kick back to walls for pushing BMC memberships, whilst maintaining fees for very regular climbers or monthly/annual members.

Walls could potentially increase turnover overall, whilst incentivising BMC membership. I could well be wrong, but without doing the numbers (which I don't have) it would be difficult to know. Depends a lot on breakdown of visitor frequency, but wall packages are relatively standard, just with variations in prices. Very much speculation, but would be interesting to know if the numbers could work, even if not necessarily practical as a 1st iteration.

Obviously relies on making sure wall owners believe that the BMC was culturally supporting their interests in return, not just in financials.

However you can see from what Graeme said above, that this has been attempted/quashed before.

In reply to MischaHY:

Aye. But.

The DAV (and most of the European Alpine Associations/Clubs are pretty much a 'one-stop-shop'. There is no real 'club structure' as we have/had here in the UK. You just join a DAV Sektion. And since they own the huts and the walls, as you say, there is a real incentive to do so.

Hmmmm.

Nationalisation of the climbing walls.......

In reply to Andy Say:


Not sure that's going to happen, comrade.

In reply to Offwidth:
OK I know what you're saying about the stats, but if you're going to counter the claims, can I politely suggest doing some analysis on the numbers and back it up, rather than just saying "ask a statistician". So you said...


In 2010, BMC membership survey showed that for members, 87% hillwalking was one of their primary activities (top 3), 62% rock climbing, 37% indoor climbing.

Maybe that was representative of participation in 2010, maybe not.

However, 74% of members said that they climbed outdoor, 72% said they climbed indoors. At that point in time BMC membership was 74k. So 54k members climbed outdoor, 53k indoor at all (to what level of participation that was defined I don't know).

This was before a surge in growth of climbing walls etc.

Again, based on the latest SE stats (which you're happy with), in 2016, after a surge in climbing walls and overall total participation increase (regardless of breakdown of rate of increase), participation (twice per month) is at:

1,967,788 hill walking
106,945 outdoor climbing
171,112 indoor climbing

In 2016, 65k people climb indoors twice per month, that don't climb outdoors AT ALL. Also, twice per month, is a better measure of addressable market, in my view. I think it's very reasonable to assume that in 2010 indoor climbing was not at that level of participation, relatively.

Anyhow, let's assume that the segment breakdown within the membership hasn't hugely shifted, and is broadly still the same as it was in 2010. If not, then the question is, from which segment has it lost?

On that basis, BMC hasn't matched participation growth in indoor climbing (and not in only hillwalkers). If the BMC was broadly representative in 2010, it can't be now, or it would have 60% more indoor climbers than outdoor and we could reasonably say it would have more members overall than it does.

Even if you're saying that BMC growth has been directly proportional to participation growth in BMCs main segment (hill-walkers that also climb outdoor, therefore outdoor climbing a good proxy), then still in 2016, the market captured by BMC for those that participate in climbing twice per month, assuming still at 74% of total membership is:

Outdoor climbers = 57%
Indoor climbers = 35% (remember 61% are also outdoor climbers and overlapping)

If what you say is true, given total participation across the whole of the BMC's remit has gone up, then there's been growth in other areas and BMC hasn't reacted to them, yet. I don't think you can say what you've said as a defence of a pro-active strategy.

"The BMC promotes the interests of climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers and the freedom to enjoy their activities."

BMC mission isn't to just promote the interests of those hill-walkers that also climb, (or maybe better to say climbers that also hill-walk, with a small proportion of extra 'only-hillwalkers' too), which is what your argument defends. At the moment they are the most likely segment of all participants to be members, yes, but that's because the offers aren't attractive enough to those that only hill-walk, only indoor climb, or only outdoor climb, and all their overlapping segments.

I'm more than happy to be challenged and/or proven wrong on this. Given that analysis on this is limited so far, and the BMC said this morning to me, "the data doesn’t exist, we've only just started tracking it", it's a valuable debate to have out in the open. If you can, or indeed anyone can, then please properly falsify what I've said, with the figures to back it up.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-climbing-wall-users-survey-2010-report
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-member-survey-2010-results

In reply to JR:


Times change and just because it wasn't the thought to be the right option then, doesn't mean it's not now......

I'm struggling to see, as it stands, why someone who only goes to a wall a couple of times a month (I'm assuming this is the "growth market") would even consider joining the BMC. Even for regular (multiple times a week) indoor only climbers with no interest in competitions, I don't see the appeal. It's a tough sell.

In reply to MischaHY:


We took a different path a long time ago and ca't really get back to somehwere where the BMC could become the equivalent to the DAV, even if we wanted it to.


A tax on indoor climbers?


I don't think it's much of a storm at all, I think if they do manage to raise enough signatures the motion would be easily defeated but it has raised some interesting points in a public forum so has probably actually done the BMC some good, if not the intended outcome of the signatories.

In reply to galpinos:

>A tax on indoor climbers?

This already exists in that a lot of walls allow Team GB members to climb for free. Obviously some walls get used more than others.

In reply to galpinos:


Agree very much

In reply to galpinos:


I agree with this 100% why would anyone using a wall for a kids birthday party be interested in access on one hand and competitions on the other ?

In reply to GrahamD:


Well they wouldn't. Clearly a strawman argument. They wouldn't show in the SE stats for starters.

In reply to JR:

As much as you try you cant prove what you say (that the graph shows BMC membership IS falling behind participation trends) so you simply shouldn't say it. You are right to show the graph and warn of the obvious possibilities and the importance of having better data.

In reply to Offwidth:

Ok, I'll add "it seems" into the sentence in the blog. I'm not sure changes the strength of the overall article at all.

Can you actually explain the statistical reasons I shouldn't say it, using this as the practical example?

In reply to JR:

As mentioned elsewhere, a great post. Real figures, etc. which always are hard to refute.


I see lots of mentions throughout around a 'tax' on indoor climbing members. This is similar to the system I was told about several years ago through a friend, a manager of a Finnish climbing wall.

Firstly it's roped climbers only, not capturing boulderers so obviously missing a large percentage of indoor climbers but I'm sure it could be tweaked.

Essentially, we will all know the assessment test you have to do on your first time ever at a climbing gym to get sign-off to rope climb, belay, etc. Our Scandinavian friends have made a nationwide approval system based on a card.
I.e. The card to approve a climber for belaying, leading, etc. is managed through the National Climbing Federation - and as far as I'm aware, when you go to get this card for the first time, a significant amount of the fee paid at the climbing gym to get the card goes directly to the Climbing Federation for 'management' of the database. Also of note, it is only for the card to allow you rope climb, it does not include membership to the Federation as we know similar to the BMC - that's a traditional annual fee like the BMC currently.
Of the income generated by this 'climbing card, my understanding of the card was the income generated was solely focused on indoor climbing also - towards competition climbing, events, promotion of indoor climbing, etc.

Here's the best description I could find in English (appears this is in operation in Sweden also): http://www.klattercentret.se/solna/english/

It's an interesting concept that intrigued at the time and now, on reflection, it reminds me of the NICAS system run for kids.......


The other flip side to this is potentially a lot of people will just never become members of the national federation: what's the membership rate for swimming, biking, football? I'd guess it's tiny (directly contradicting my compliment of John's original post by providing no data whatsoever . Personally, finding a method for those who are not interested in joining the full federation to support it, even once when they have to get their card (like above), is better than nothing - plus, there will always be new people every year providing a constant stream of income.

In reply to JR:
'It seems' is fine.

The reason is simply BMC members are not the same distribution as the participation group (with the BMC having comparative under-representation of hillwalkers and indoor climbers, where there is most growth in participation). My example above illustrated the point. You could also say The BMC should be looking at differential growth, aiming to close the gap (if you accept hillwalking and indoor climbing are vaild growth areas... many BMC members don't but I'm not one of them). I suspact a lot of the current BMC trend to hillwalking is just BMC climbers getting older and walking more. Another issue of real risk you could mention is the age distribution of the BMC. Wall based clubs would really help in this; student clubs already do.

Irrespective of where we end up on our slightly different views on 'value' the BMC needs to know where it is so it can plan more effectively.. better data is needed.

In reply to Offwidth:

I know, I'm not coming at it from that view. I don't think it's disingenuous to say that the SE figures are a maximum addressable market, if the BMC intended to attract them, given that it aims to represent the interests of climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers. It doesn't, I say it should. I have started from that premise.

My point was, it's not actually anything to do with the pure stats of it all, it's because you're coming from a different premise based on only the current BMC product. That's fine, I just don't agree that's the premise to start from.


The crux... if the BMC doesn't do that, pretty much the only way out is one or a combination of:

a) more external funding
b) higher membership fees
c) cuts

Which I don't think is wise in the current landscape of climbing for the reasons in the blog. I think we basically agree Offwidth, you just like an argument

Anyhow, I'm off indoor climbing now, to train for outdoor climbing, in the mountains. Thanks for this discussion.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Interesting graph Alan, but could you plot one vs "active users" (by whatever metric you like), since presumably people would be less likely to deregister on UKC compared to letting BMC membership lapse?

In reply to JR:


This was in response to someone suggesting that all wall users should be contributing to the BMC which seems like nonsense to me. I can't see what the BMC can offer the majority of people climbing indoors who have no interest in competitions. Other than possibly administering a national competence data base which I didn't think was on the table.

In reply to 67hours:

We delete accounts that aren't used for two years. The figure for UKC Registered users is people who have registered in the last two years, plus those who registered before that and have logged in during the last two years.

Just in case people think that UKC users might not necessarily be climbers, in out user survey of 2016, 0.5% of our users said they weren't climbers.

Alan

In reply to john arran:

Agree that indoor climbers have much to be grateful to the BMC for, but that isn't going to make them join.

Survey after survey has said that access is the big issue for BMC members, but it's not really a concern for indoor-only climbers - they pay for their access directly !

Which is not to say that that indoor-only climbers shouldn't join the BMC, nor that the BMC shouldn't try to get them to join, but we shouldn't beat the BMC up because they haven't joined.

In reply to JR:

As Offwidth says, stats can be misleading.

BMC membership has risen sharply in the last 15 years, but your graph shows a decline in terms of percentage participation.

Don't have easy access to the stats right now (I'm skiing in Canada) but maybe you can check the increase in individual membership over that period. My understanding is that club membership has been static - possibly even gone down with the AMA leaving - but individual membership has gone up by somewhere between 50 and 75%.

Plot that against outdoor participation and you get a differant picture

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Are the names in the public domain ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Over what time period are you saying this is true?

AMA is roughly 2500. I think they left in 2010. That may well be responsible for the flatline in BMC membership around then.

Overall membership is up c. 25% since 2005. 5% since the spike in participation in 2010 (~ when AMA left). However for your 50-75% to be true, given individual membership is now ~60k and clubs 20k, and membership overall hasn't risen 50-75%, clubs must be have been purging members at quite a rate, or clubs leaving the BMC.

Without the actual data but based on just the data points I already have you can probably say that 50-75% is not true, but there has been some fairly small increase individual vs club since 2010, maybe 10% ish. Some are also probably switching from club to individual so revenue but not actual new member growth.

Maybe there was the double counting of club + individual at play (though I believe that's been) sorted. One could also plot overall subscription revenue as that would show a big increase if what you're saying is true.

Either way you're starting from the same premise as offwidth. Fine, and great to capture that segment of (hillwalkers who are climbers too), but not only that segment when parts of the "sport" has changed so much. And if it is true, are you going defend losing so many club members?

I'm not beating the the BMC up. It's a complex problem and they do some great work, with many committed staff and volunteers. I want them to be able to continue to do so in a growing and potentially challenging landscape in future.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


There's some insight data from 2014 annual report: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1279 (series data has no labels, but you can work it out...)

Individual subscriptions did very well 2007 -> 2010 (about 20% increase for that subscription type over that period) but that trend has stagnated, against the SE participation figures since 2010.

In reply to Andy Say:

True for joining, but there are plenty of small clubs running within the DAV structure, operated by volunteers who are often put through qualifications by the DAV for free.


Nationalisation seems a bit harsh, but I'm of the opinion that a strong integration would help massively. I would like to see BMC structured and subsidised courses in every wall, volunteers teaching key skills and etiquette, incentivised channelling of funding for youth groups to integrate more youngsters not only into indoor climbing, but into the broader sport, encouraging them to explore the massive variety of crags we have in the UK that are *so* accessible.

And whilst we're on the subject of clubs in the UK - in my opinion, the structure is rubbish. Throughout my process of learning to climb, qualifying as an instructor, climbing all over the UK, I have never once been approached or had the opportunity to join a club, nor felt remotely incentivised to do so. The only club I've ever had contact with was the (delightful) Mountaineering Club of Bury, who, whilst very enthusiastic and friendly, had little to no members in their sub-30's.

The ridiculous thing is that the need is present, and so is the enthusiasm! All over Facebook we see groups forming, growing, integrating new members and showing them the ropes. For an example of a tight knit community that maintains excellent regular meetings despite growing to over 100 members, check out 'The Flashers' on Facebook (Great name, I know).

Now, I can absolutely guarantee that the people running and managing these groups would love to operate under a national structure, alongside contributing to and benefiting from funding. With the DAV there would be a clear pathway, and a great incentivisation to do so. Where does the BMC stand on this front? I see great work being done on access and other such topics from BMC reps, but in terms of community integration they are massively lagging behind.

The UK climbing community is so close knit and growing so fast that we have the opportunity to do something really special with it, an opportunity to increase community integration with the national body that will massively benefit all elements both indoor and outdoor.

Is it happening? I don't see it.

In reply to galpinos:


Why not? Indoor climbing is an absolute cash cow, and a proportion of that funding could be channeled into improving access, facilities and training for all. It's not like the market for climbing gyms is so fragile that it would crumple at a slight price shift. If even a tiny proportion of that funding was routed into really drawing people into climbing on a nation wide level it would pay itself off massively and we'd have way better facilities, infrastructure and representation on a national level.

In reply to MischaHY:


I'm not sure I understand what's being suggested here. I had assumed galpinos was being ironic. What exactly would each wall and climber be getting in return for this 'contribution'? If particular walls are generous enough (and can see the PR advantages and kudos) to have GB team members train in their facilities, that's great, but granting the BMC tax-raising powers would, I suspect, play directly to the paranoia hinted at in the no confidence motion!

Climbers, particularly the beardy ones, like to think of themselves as a pretty awkward bunch and the BMC has to tread a very thin line between being a voice and being seen as a regulator. It's an uncomfortable position that makes running the organisation almost impossible I should think. Nevertheless, it's why it has to remain a representative body, and not a governing one and why it becomes dependent on government funding, rather than membership subscriptions, at its peril.

I still think that this representative and advisory role applies more naturally to outside activities than indoors, for the very obvious reasons that indoor facilities are (a) designed, built and owned by someone, (b) charge for the facilities they provide.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


You just do that out of the kindest of your heart Graeme......

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I think there's just crossed wires at how people are using the definition of "tax"

See what I posted here: https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=659633&v=1#x8512168

In reply to MischaHY:

It is, potentially, but should we be milking it/them for the benefit of others (i.e the "indoor" climbers paying for the "outdoor" climbers)


Do you mean access issues outside or access to climbing in general? If the former, I don't think many indoor climbers would want to pay for that and if the later, climbing is easier to get into now than ever before. With regards to facilities and training, there are walls popping up left right and centre (all of which are better than the wall in Danes Camp Leisure Centre that was all I had available) and you can't move for SPAs and MIAs (if the forums on here are to be believed) so getting someone qualified to take you out is a doddle, if expensive


The BMC is not trying to increase participation as far as I'm aware, it is trying to more representative (i.e. increase membership as a proportion of participants) so it has no remit to "really draw people into climbing". Also, of the benefits listed, the facilities and infrastructure are already provided by private companies (our local Depot could hardly be improved by BMC influence) so the only one left is the representation on a national level, which is against the values of the more "traditional" section of the BMC membership.

Apologies if I sound critical, I'm not trying to be but I think it's a tricky path to forge for the BMC at the moment. I've been a member for years, purely for the access, guidebooks and "good works" that the BMC has done and continues to do. I'd love to see indoor only climbers (I'm neither indoor nor outdoor, I do a bit of everything, badly) wanting to join the BMC (not get signed up or contribute by stealth) because of what it is and what it does but their needs to be a perceived benefit for them and at the moment, I can't see that.

Take a once a week regular at the Depot. They've got a world class facility to visit, why would they join the BMC? Why would they want to subsidise the national team if they have no interest in comps? What perceived benefit would they get?

In reply to MischaHY:


I don't know about the DAV but I recently climbed with a friend in Switzerland on a small but excellent bouldering wall that I think he said was supported by the local section of the SAC. Local members got a key and it was all very impressive.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Oi! Who're you calling awkward?

Mick (bloody hell, who's nicked my beard...)

In reply to galpinos:

I think we agree that's not to say they shouldn't make it more attractive to them.

I wonder how many of those there are, that also don't climb outside. Difficult to know, but.... off the top of my head lots of added benefits. If you could secure discounts on Depot entry, support with training best practices, injury prevention, NICAS/NIBAS exists for both adults and young people (spin off from SE funding given to BMC years a number of years ago) and is doing well, but I wonder how that's helped conversion to BMC membership...

PS were you at Depot last night?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I think you're probably right, but it is still a good idea.


The climbers would get access to new/improved facilities, free tutoring, coaching and support from funded volunteers and subsidised professionals, clearly defined pathways into national level performance for those interested, long term drop in prices as the market increases, support on clearly underrepresented topics such as common injuries and how to avoid them, a standardised grounding in outdoor ethics and techniques, further BMC owned crags, a much more organised and better coordinated representation on the world cup stage.

As for the walls, the support and convenience offered by the services from a national body would give them a stronger selling point increasing overall usage, combined with the potential for increased engagement from schools and other funded youth institutions.


Personally I strongly oppose the idea that the atypical 'bearded misery guts' representation of a climber is completely representative of the modern climbing community. The world has moved on and dinosaurs should be left where they belong; in the past.


Even as a regulatory body I believe the BMC could and should be of much greater influence over the way that new and current climbers interact with the sport. The current void between our mountaineering body and the most modern training facilities being constructed today is the reason the UK is lagging behind other countries on the climbing stage. Just look at the new team facility being constructed in Innsbruck! Can you imagine something like that happening in the UK? In the current climate, I can't.

In reply to galpinos:

No, we should be milking it for *all* climbers. I understand your point on BMC representation vs pushing for growth in the overall sport, but in my opinion they *should* be pushing for overall growth as a bid to increase membership. The whole problem here is that in the BMC, a massive proportion of the climbing community is underrepresented, and so a lot of pandering is being done to a certain proportion of members who, whilst being a valued and equal part of the organisation, do not and should not represent all of its interests.
See my comment above for where funding could be channeled too.


Given that the Depot runs some pretty big and successful comps, I'd say they have a vested interest in them. Sure, they can run their own marketing schemes, but they can't reach the way a national body can reach. They're not equipped to negotiate increased participation from schools etc on a national level. As you say, they're just a business that wants to make profit, and therefore it makes little sense to devote time to such things - but a partnership with a national body that delivers on these negotiations and by proxy results in regular organised visits from youth groups and the likelihood of higher long term participation from those involved is a very good incentive indeed. The onus for subsidising the national team should be on the BMC, not on the walls. Hence why an overall stipend from entry costs would work much better.

As for the casual once a week user, I'd agree with Jon's point above. There's many ways that a casual user can be incentivised to engage with something on a national level. It just needs to be well organised.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
Many of the DAV walls I've come across have short-term plans for expansion and improvement of their already excellent facilities. The Kletterzentrum in Heilbron, for example, is soon building a massive expansion of the available bouldering and lead climbing in a wall that is already much better than many in the UK. Once complete it will be truly monstrous.

This improvement and high standard is all a direct result of DAV funding.

In reply to JR:
I think you are being even more unfair to Chris than you are to me. What premise exactly is he starting from? He seems to me to be the epitome of an insider looking out for outsiders. I admired his significant volunteer efforts to make the BMC more open, democratic and welcoming.

Someone above has already, said "real figures, hard to dispute". The figures really don't currently prove anything at all in terms of comparative recent growth and are trivially easy to dispute, as Chris and I both have. They do show the already well known fact that the BMC membership is only a small proportion of what it could be and much smaller than it should be. I await with great interest the outcomes of the pretty new focus on recruiting and improving the service for hillwalkers.

The club thing is very complex. Its like the old joke about someone asking how to get somewhere, being told: don't start from here! Clubs formed the BMC and the good of the organisations overlap. Some clubs have behaved shamefully applying fee leverage on a finance value of subs type arguments, as it goes against the mutally beneficial good of the arrangements. I'd simply say the BMC just doesn't need such clubs, as in the end they will fracture the delicate deal that allows the unusual benefits of the current structure to continue. From a pure finance subs value perspective the current subsidy made by individual incomes to the BMC for the clubs is simply not justifiable (club members contribute very little to the BMC after costs, individual members a significant portion of their fee). Holistically the situation looks much better: mutual support and shared facility and important alliances to help fight big picture problems.

I seriously wonder how the BMC avoids double counting as many pay mulitiple memberships knowing how trivial the money is in the big picture to them and the expense involved in claiming it back significant to the organisation (losing income with ectra costs involved)

I'd love to see wall based clubs and facebook groups join under the BMC umbrella following Mischa and others suggestions but clearly others in the BMC feel threatened by this, usually those in big clubs. The bigger the BMC membership is and the more focussed on the good of the organisation (rather than just value for money) the more effective we can be in difficult times, where austerity is threatening unwelcome changes, especially in national parks.

In reply to Offwidth:


Nothing intended to take any of that away from Chris (or your efforts)

Personally I don't think it's unfair to challenge assumptions and figures that are quoted without actual backup. Apologies if the response seemed harsh, toning forum conversations are always a challenge.

In reply to:

How many people who go purely to indoor walls are simply going to the gym ?

Many people, particularly those responsible for climbing comps and walls, classify these people as climbers. I would question this.

There is a significant number of adults who go to climbing walls simply as a variation on gym membership - these people are not, and never will be interested in anything else, and most probably in not actually going to a different wall (if it means travelling more than a couple of miles).

There is also a significant number of youngsters who go to the wall for a period in much the same way as they go to football, swimming, athletics and so forth.
They have no long term interest, are jumping from activity to activity on a frequent basis, and their parents are effectively using these activities as cheap child care facilities.

We should not realistically classify these persons as climbers, in the same way that if I was to decide to go to watch a football match on a special occasion I wouldn't be a football fan.
(And anyway I prefer Rugby !)

In reply to fred99:

Here's a simple classification; are they engaging in climbing? If so, they are climbers.

It's this romanticising of the climbing identity and the idea that climbing outdoors somehow makes you 'more' of a climber than those who climb exclusively indoors that is preventing broader integration.

That said, the point you bring up is exactly why we *need* a better representative body. Many of those people would, I believe, be open to exploring the wider aspects of climbing and having a stronger relationship with the outdoors.

This growth in engagement and raising understanding of the broader elements of climbing would be possible under a better funded and more integrated BMC.

In reply to Offwidth:

And as for the second part of your post. Completely agree. I know you know we broadly agree.

FYI average subscription revenue per member across all types of member in 2016 is £20.83. One to consider reference:

In reply to Chris the Tall:

A list of names is on an old draft version of the motion, it is on FB

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1188696237907773&set=a.15981462...

In reply to JR:


Yep, I've just put two and two together. I shall say a proper hello next time!

In reply to JR:
Thats the irony, I welcome the intent behind your work here and I'm guessing Chris does too. The data is indeed letting everyone down but that means no one should be making clearly unprovable assertions based on quicksand.

We can look at the huge gap between BMC membership and participation. The BMC is already working on this away from its traditional outdoor climbing base. It was pointed out on't other channel that it could also do better within recruitment of performance sports climbers and boulderers. Too many on the outside think the BMC is a fuddy-duddy and trad-focussed white old mans club, despite the organisational emphasis and some really positive recent changes.

In reply to JR:

Anecdotally I would agree with Chris that over the longer term (15 years) Individual membership has increased significantly, probably doubled whereas Club membership has reduced.

Individual membership going up has been achieved by a variety of means including the 1/2 price Direct Debit offer, the ability to upgrade from Club to Individual.

Club membership has been reduced by de-duping (I don't know when this occurred, it is in the last 10 years) and the AMA leaving.

In reply to MischaHY and John Arran:

The BMC does virtually nothing for walls anymore, the mantle of representative/governing body for walls was passed to the ABC a long time ago. The BMC has not even had a Climbing Walls Officer for a period of time.

In reply to MischaHY:


I thought one of the main attractions of facebook groups and alike was that they didn't have to set up or belong to some formal arrangement and pay membership fees?

In reply to Offwidth:


It appears that some of those fuddy-duddy, trad-focussed white old men are nevertheless resentful of the organisational emphasis and recent positive changes!

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


I didn't realise that. Another telling example of what happens when you cut yourself off from change in the sport - the sport will inevitably change and leave you behind.

In reply to MischaHY:

You are missing the point. When climbing was an underground, minority activity it did have an air of romance to it, indeed some would say that was it's essence. It is however becoming just another sporting mainstream activity and for many of us that is a little sad. I agree in large part with fred99 regarding the culture that has arisen around indoor climbing but it does in large part depend upon the individual wall. Walls in "climber centric" areas e.g. the Lakes, Peak District, North Wales and Bristol manage to maintain an air of climbing culture/history but many others are just gyms. I like the former but hate with a vengeance the latter. Not all walls are created equal.

Al

In reply to MischaHY:


Its simple and its inaccurate. Kids going to a wall or a go ape with a climbing tower are no more climbers than kids who use the monkey bars in a play park are gymnasts.

There are a whole raft of people who use indoor facilities who I'd argue need have nothing to to with the BMC.

In reply to JR:

Interesting article. Good source of statistics for anyone interested in this.

As someone who works with stats every day, I wouldn't say that graph is evidence enough to support your conclusions about where the bmc should head.

Even if you see it as essential that bmc membership rates increase at the same rate as participation figures (which I don't really think it is), you'd surely expect there to be an element of 'lag time' between people starting to participate in an activity and then forking out 30 quid to join an organisation that they may never have heard of.

You need to be asking "who are the people who are starting to participate" "what are they likely to want" "are their needs going to lead to increased costs for the bmc".

In reply to GridNorth:

Where are all these people who feel they are taking part in a sporting mainsteam? Nearly all the climbers and hill-walkers I know see their main passion as a physical activity. A sport is competitive. The joy in today's youth seems to me the same that my more ancient friends express when reminiscing.

In reply to Offwidth:


Two comments:

Firstly, it shouldn't be about the good of the organisation - (which smacks of growth for the sake of growth, at the expense of focus) - it should (IMO) be to maximise effectiveness in the areas of access and conservation (basically everything that concerns all outdoor enthusiasts).
Secondly, I whole heartedly agree with what you say about national parks (that is IMO right in the centre of the BMC's raison d'etre) but fail to see what that has to do with people who only ever visit an inner city climbing wall and have no intention of going beyond those boundries.

I think there is a problem with discussions like this in that by the very nature of the forum contributors are likely to have a much wider interest in climbing than many wall users.

In reply to Offwidth:
I was talking about the direction that climbing seems to be moving in and described by some in this and similar threads i.e. indoors and competition. At my local wall I would say that the majority have no interest in climbing outdoors, indeed the very prospect seems to horrify many of them. More and more people now refer to climbing as a sport. As I said above when I go to places like the Beacon or Kendal I feel that I am amongst kindred spirits but at some walls I feel like an outsider.


Al

In reply to Graeme Alderson, Offwidth, Chris the Tall:

Over 15 years you're absolutely correct, essentially 100%. If you go back long enough it'll go to infinity! I just wasn't going back that far, as my main point is that BMC needs to react more to recent participation changes. Posted from the link above: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1279

As club membership seems broadly level since 2001 (2k difference 27k -> 25k) then the analysis still stands. Individual subscriptions have kept on trend with participation, until 2014 by the SE figures, where the landscape has changed.


That being the case, there's been a strategic decision there and based on this thread and the feedback so far, I think many folk members and non-members don't think that's right.

To Offwidth/Chris the Tall:

I'm trying to do as much as possible not to make "unprovable assertions based on quicksand." and that's why I'm challenging any I think there are from responses. No offence intended to either of you at all, and the whole point of the discussion is to raise these challenges either way, and the discussion swaying back and forth is hopefully bringing out interesting and useful insights for everyone.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Thanks Franco

In reply to GrahamD:

But why shouldn't they help fund the BMC through use of facilities that guide users into climbing?

I find it impressively vacuous to state that an idea of climbing identity is more valuable than channelling funding that could be directly used for improving access and experience of the sport for those who *are* interested on being more deeply integrated.

It would also incentivise those who would otherwise not engage to do so, given that they are effectively paying for certain services anyway.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

True, however my point is that within a system funded from participation and entry fees and run by volunteers at the grass roots level, membership fees would not be necessary. The majority of good quality groups that I've encountered would greatly appreciate the opportunity to be formally representative.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

An excellent example of how the current system greatly requires revamping. How ludicrous is it that our mountaineering body does not have a representative that deals with the management of training facilities? Preposterous.

In reply to GridNorth:

This, I understand - I know exactly what you mean about community and some walls feeling detached from the origins of climbing - but isn't this why we need to integrate our representative body better into modern training facilities?

The way I see it is, the psyched climbers are out there more than ever, and so many would love the opportunity to get out in the mountains, learn skills and test themselves against the best the UK has to offer; this could be achieved by a BMC that embraced the opportunity that better integration with the indoor community has to offer.

In reply to MischaHY:
I think the fear is that the BMC will find itself dragged into those more "modern" disciplines, indoors and competition, at the expense of the more traditional and historical. I feel that I have more in common with a walker than an indoor climber in that respect therefore the BMC currently represents me. As I said earlier a lot of this is to do with the wall you frequent. I don't meet many indoors who want to go outdoors. If I did I would be more optimistic. It's also worth mentioning that the idea of "training" for climbing, at least in a structured, disciplined manner, is also a modern trend facilitated by indoor walls.

Al

In reply to GrahamD:


This reminds me of something Grimer wrote on instagram etc after we'd spent an afternoon at Egerton quarry, in the rain, cleaning, climbing and checking routes for the new Lancs guide:

https://www.instagram.com/p/8ytOnpSzph/


I see the 8 year olds in the Depot, turning up religiously on a Saturday morning, doing NIBAS level 1, scribbling away in their logbooks, psyched for the next problem, having an amazing time, with parents on the sideline.

I see them as no less climbers than you, Niall or I.

One day those 8 year olds may be at Egerton in the rain, researching the new guide, putting up a new route in some unknown part of China, or they may be world or olympic champion.

I wouldn't want to see them let down, nor would I want to have a system or governing body, that lets them down.

Climbing isn't just about climbing through the eyes of one lens.

In reply to GridNorth:

Go to Awesome Sheffield on a weekday morning and you will meet so many old friends that you will not climb much. They are still there and still climbing hard. And still fervently outdoors but waiting for the warm dry weather.
Many of us acquire new climbers and take them out with us. (I do it because there are some routes I want to do and need a leader for!)

In reply to GridNorth:

I think the mistake often made is to assume that a wider remit necessarily leads to reduced attention to the original issues. Certainly that's possible, but that's part of what good management should be there to prevent. This whole idea of a shift of 'focus' I think is misleading as there should be lots of things in focus at once.

In reply to GridNorth:

I agree with others in that increase in one aspect of an organisation should not ultimately lead to reduction in other aspects. Quite to the contrary, if the increase is used in the right way. Ma y climbers I've met indoors have heard story after story of the hallowed crags; of Stanage, Cloggy, Malham and more. They're majorly psyched for the chance to get involved. All they need is the right help and guidance to be the next generation of adventure lovers.

In reply to JR:
It's too easy to get stuck on the semantics of this. For me being a climber is more about attitude than physical movement. Some are claiming the stats show an increase in climbing and mountaineering which just goes to show how misleading stats can be. I don't have evidence but observation and experience suggest to me that the majority of this increase is due to an uptake in indoor climbing exclusively.

If climbing in the traditional sense is on the decrease and indoor climbing is on the increase it stands to reason that the focus of the BMC will change accordingly and this to me would be a bad thing. Notice I'm not saying it would be wrong I'm just saying that for me personally it would be a step backwards.

Al

In reply to JR:
I really think the debate is distracted by an unprovable view the BMC is falling behind participation. This is not evidenced for the statistical and methodological reasons I raised and for the specifics of the BMC membership distribution that Chris raised (with a faster growing individual membership) and the newish focus on hillwalking with an inevitable lag factor, that Franco raised. Your efforts would be best applied to the sensible view that the gap between membership and participation could be closed by the way the BMC improves the way it markets itself. Yet looking sensibly at this doesn't mean the anaylsis can be acted on by getting agreement through BMC processes.

The real debate is how can we best increase membership with the finance, shared ethos and political clout benefits within the BMC democratic and volunteer dependant structures, when there is such obvious suspicion about recruitment activities for hillwalkers and indoor climbers (and yes in some circles even boulderers and sport climbers) and further, some serious looking internal division? We have a regressive no confidence motion supported by some very important climbing names that given the composition of the AGM has more chance of success than most ordinary BMC members would realise. Whatever the result, the outcome will be damage.

In reply to MischaHY:


and join a climbing club?!

In reply to Offwidth:
Here's the plot including individual/club breakdown (2015 and 16 is an estimate based on clubs staying essentially flat at 25k)

http://bit.ly/BMCGraph

Clubs membership is essentially flat, not really any significant change since 2008, hovered between 24 and 25k. Individual subscriptions are exactly what's driving increasing membership overall, matched closely until 2014, when participation moved.

I'll repeat... Yes, BMC might be in line with participation for its current target audience, but I don't think its target audience is representative of what climbing, mountaineering and hillwalking participation is at the moment, or has it kept up with the change in that breakdown since 2014. And the SE measures show much more for 2016 (with the caveats we've discussed).

I've made the raw data available so play away:

Excel: http://bit.ly/BMCRawXL
Google Drive: http://bit.ly/BMCRawGoo

I'm not going to go over the same argument with you again, data is there for you now. Go for it!

In reply to Offwidth:


Yup agree. Hence let's try and debate it into the right direction.

In reply to MischaHY:


A climbing wall doesn't guide anyone into 'climbing' in any way the BMC will impact them. Some will go that direction for sure, and then it is fair to target them for contribution. But not if their sole interest is an indoor climbing wall or climbing tower or somesuch.

In reply to JR:


Agreed. And when they do choose to broaden their horizons beyond the confines of a commercial centre then by all means target them for BMC contributions. But I also people looning around on climbing towers at Go Ape or on inflatable walls at office team building events or kids birthday parties or people just going along for a bit of exercise. These people have nothing to gain from the BMC.

In reply to john arran:


I think this has yet to be demonstrated.

In reply to JR:

I think it stands to reason that if the traditional membership starts to decrease and the indoor/competition membership increases the focus of the BMC will drift towards the latter. If I thought that a disproportionate part of my subscription was going towards competitions, sponsorship, indoor walls etc. I would terminate my membership as I am sure would many others so this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

Al

In reply to JR:
I seem to remember that back in 2002 - when we had the EGM over subs - that the split was around 33k to 27k of IMs to CMs. If it's now 55k to 25k then that's a 66% rise in IM.

Unfortunately I'm not able to easily verify those figures, and the powder is calling !

I suspect however that those backing this motion aren't concerned that the BMC isn't attracting enough new members, quite the opposite. This is a continuation of the rumbling battle, spearheaded by some impressive members of the AC, to reverse the 'Broad Church'/expansionist policy and revert to the days when the BMC merely served the clubs

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Yes all agreed, sorry you probably didn't see my response as it wasn't linked to your post:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=659633&v=1#x8512771

Enjoy the powder!

In reply to JR:
I think you are just not getting what I am saying. Methods of data collection always have problems and associated errors. Your argument on the BMC falling behind is largely based on trusting two points of data on a SE participation graph in the context of a very different BMC membership sub category distribution to the SE group (where modelling identical to SE sub category growth in BMC sub categories could have led to pretty much the same as the actual BMC growth recorded, even ignoring any lag of hillwalking initiatives. Given this, there is simply no point me modelling as I will almost certainly spend a lot of time for no good and very likley come to the same conclusion there is no evidential gap demonstratable on that data. I'm guessing its more likely you are right than wrong, but that isn't enough reason to say you are right: to confirm a hypothesis you need defined statistical significance that you almost certainly just don't have. Quicksand won't model .. we just need better data to prove such stuff. There is a big and fairly constant proportional gap in BMC membership and SE data and known obvious reasons for this, with plenty of room for improvement where the BMC is already acting. That is more than enough to be going on with until we get better data.

The BMC had little focus on those exclusively hill walking without climbing/scrambling until very recently. So we actually know the BMC target audience is nothing like representative of what hill-walking participation is in the past or at the moment. That subcategory is the biggest in the SE group. This lack of BMC focus is despite much commonality in access issues. That is why the organisation has now focussed on this area for growth. Yet within this much smaller sub category some people were BMC members and the growth still may well have kept up with the respective sub category SE growth until 2014 and after this. I don't believe you can tell one way or the other on the current data.

In reply to Offwidth:


I really do, I think almost all you've written is entirely right, I'm not saying I definitely am 100% right, I'm saying the analysis is, in my view, the most likely scenario, and a possible strategy to address it, based on all the different the signals, quantitative, qualitative and anecdotal described, or otherwise. I'm sure the team are working on things neither you, nor I, know about to address it.

Though I'm certain on one thing, there's more chance of you getting the last word than you agreeing we basically agree! :p

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Graeme; Better tell Rob, then

The current BMC website describes him as:
'Rob Adie – Competitions & Climbing Walls Officer. Rob runs all of the BMC's national and international climbing competitions and assists with the management of the GB Climbing Teams. He also provides advice about climbing wall related issues and offers climbing wall managers and developers advice and information, making sure climbing walls are run with the interests of its users as a priority. He previously worked for Entre-Prises Climbing Walls as a designer. He claims to be a hardcore ice climber, but can sometimes be found greasing off sloping holds in the peak.

In reply to Andy Say:

Andy,
All that shows is how poor the BMC are at upgrading anything on their website. That is originally what Robs post was when he was recruited.
However, his title was changed following a N/C meeting 2013 ( when Scott Titt was President) following a meeting he went to with Sport England, where they told him the BMC had too many committees, and so the Climbing Wall Committee was removed following a vote.
It was deemed by the exec at the time that the ABC was the way forward and they would best represent the views of BMC members!!!!!!!!!!
Rob is Comps officer ( but will give advice on walls)
Dave T is the BMC representative on the ABC
Cheers
Nick B
ex-Chair of BMC Climbing Walls Committee

In reply to astley007:

Thanks for the detailed reply Nick.

There you go Andy, told you so nargh, nargh, nargh, nargh, nargh. nargh

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Grovel, grovel,grovel, grovel........

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Hi Graeme,

You are wrong on that I am afraid - I am still the BMC's climbing wall development officer - its still in my job title and although I have a lot less involvement in the ABC these days I still advise on wall development on a daily basis. Climbing Walls sits under the Training & Youth Committee now, and I sit on that committee and regularly discuss climbing wall issues. However the majority of my role these days is centred around competitions and the GB Climbing Team.

Cheers

Rob

In reply to adie84:

You'd better tell Nick Bond then He thinks he has been disbanded !

In reply to JR:

So nice that Jezza has a "moment" named after him.

In reply to Big Ger:


It will be placed in the Labour museum next to the Ed stone.

In reply to all

The BMC have responded so I started another thread:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=659959

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


'You are wrong on that I am afraid - I am still the BMC's climbing wall development officer - its still in my job title and although I have a lot less involvement in the ABC these days I still advise on wall development on a daily basis.'

so nargh, nargh, nargh, nargh, nargh. nargh with brass knobs on