UKC

I’m genuinely perplexed by this - what is the actual problem with the BMC considering a rebrand? (let’s put to one side the universally agreed conclusion that they made a complete lash-up of the process, I’m asking here about WHAT they were trying to do, not HOW they managed to cock it up!)

In the last few years, the national body for cycling has rebranded as “British Cycling”, and the Mountaineering Council of Ireland had rebranded as “Mountaineering Ireland”

Two organisations which I am a member of have successfully rebranded in the last year or so –
- The Civil Service Motoring Association (established as that in 1923!) changed its public face to “boundless” involving a total revamp of its website and in-house magazine. At first I thought it was a bit cringeworthy, but it didn’t bother me as a member, and now I refer to it interchangeably as “CSMA” or “boundless” depending what I’m looking at.
- The Mountaineering Council of Scotland changed its public face to “Mountaineering Scotland”, and also uses the name “Climb Scotland” depending on context. They did it in full consultation with their membership, and even had a members competition to design the new logo. There was absolutely no fuss at all that I’m aware of.

I’ve used the term “public face” for those two, as they did not change their registered name so there was no requirement to change that in their constitution, thus there was no requirement for member approval (but they didn’t stir up any significant member disapproval either!) – this is exactly what I understand the BMC was trying to do with “Climb Britain”.

A quick glance at the current list of BMC Ambassadors shows just how staggeringly the world of climbing has changed since the BMC was formed in 1944 –
- Fran Brown – a completion paraclimber, and a World Champion at it!
- Shauna Coxsey – world class boulderer, indoors and out, now that that is taken seriously, rather than a playful time-filler!
- Hazel Findlay – phenomenally good trad climber, also 8c sport, and a good history in indoor comps
- Steve McClure – brilliant 9a+ sport climber and the odd foray into trad (like the first UK onsight of Strawberries!)
- James McHaffie – stunningly good trad climber, and also 9a sport!
- Calum Muskett – trad, sport and the Alpine climber in the mix
- Molly-Thompson Smith – champion competition climber, and possible Olympic candidate (or plastic-puller if you prefer!)
- Chris Townsend – renown as a world-wide long distance walker.
Not exactly heavy on what some folk would consider serious “Mountaineering” credentials, and I think it’s fair to say that in 1944 the founders of the BMC didn’t see a lot of those things coming! (Although with his wooden leg, Geoffrey Winthrop-Young was surely a proto-paraclimber!). Given the apparent stringency of some people’s views of how traditional the BMC should be, how many of those Ambassadors would even be in the BMC?

So, given how much the world of climbing has changed in the last 73 years, and the broad church that is now the climbing community, what is so wrong with the BMC thinking about a name change to reflect the modern climbing world, and to widen its appeal to all climbers? And why does it seem to arouse such anger, and possibly even revulsion, in some people?

Cheers
Andy

In reply to Andy Cairns:

I think it's the 'complete lash up' that is the problem.

In reply to Andy Cairns:

Because "Climb Britain" was such a shit name for an organisation we love!!

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Not according to a lot of people, who seem to have had issues with the whole idea, which is what I'm trying to understand.

Cheers
Andy

In reply to Andy Cairns:


Main difference in the BMC case is that they didn't do the above.

That's the biggest issue. Rest of your points are irrelevant really, although I'd hazard a guess that many people agree that those personalities are worthy of respect for their performance and work.

But the way BMC went about the proposal of changing name alienated many members as it was not discussed with the majority and appeared to be forced upon us.

Pettigrew is blowing out of his arse imho though.

In reply to Andy Cairns:


Also 8a sport and V9 bouldering. Not sure what her top trad grade is at the moment, but she's a very keen trad climber too.

This is pretty tangential, I admit, except it does help make the point that almost all of the top British comp climbers also have very impressive records on rock. These things aren't in opposition to each other!

In reply to Andy Cairns:

You'll probably find most of the answers if you read a few of the gazillion threads that were posted at the time

In reply to Andy Cairns:


I think the idea that we should rename the BMC along these lines for 'brand consistency' was certainly one of my objections. That and the modish rejection of ever using a proper adjective, obviously.


The adoption of a random, utterly non-descriptive name that will almost certainly need to be changed again within a few years when they focus group it and find it has zero recognition is even worse than what was proposed for the BMC, to be fair!

In reply to BnB:


Spot on. If you read back through the posts made at the time, there definitely were a few who supported the proposed name rebranding to "Climb Britain" , but there was an overwhelming surge of dissent. Most of those who posted like and wanted to retain "BMC".

In reply to Andy Cairns:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=646409
https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=646638

In reply to captain paranoia:

Yep, whizzed through those. They were in the immediate aftermath of the cock-up so lots of hatred of the logo which had just been sprung on us, lots of (perfectly justified!) slagging of b-focused and ThinkFarm, quite a few in favour of the change, and what seems to be LOTS of knee-jerk reactions against along the lines of "its always been like that, we love it, you can't change it". So mostly about the How the BMC went about it, and not the WHAT they were trying to do.

11 months later, in the shitstorm of the BMC AGM motion, we seem to be getting quite a number of posts along the lines of "Here's hoping the BMC really have learnt their lesson and they never try rebranding again", and its those I'm trying to understand. If the BMC DID try it again, and went about it properly, with lots of member consultation and involvement, what would be the problem?

Cheers
Andy

In reply to Andy Cairns:

I can't speak for the others, but I like "BMC"and wouldn't want to see it change.

In reply to Andy Cairns:

Have only recently picked up on the subject, but for me, 'mountaineering' is a lot broader than 'climb' (especially to the layman) and so leaves much more scope for the range of activities that happen on or around mountains, as opposed to what is perceived by joe public as climbing.

To answer your question, no issue with considering a rebrand, but has to be done openly and reasons explained at the outset.

In reply to Andy Cairns:

This was probably my most cogent response:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=646638#x8360304

In reply to Trangia:


But you, and me, and many others have already renamed/re-branded the organisation. The name is the British Mountaineering Council but it seems to me the brand is the BMC.

In reply to Castleman:


And to me the opposite is true - I climb hills, mountains, cliffs, boulders and indoor walls, but I don't regard any of that as mountaineering. And don't get me started on the word council.....

So I can totally accept why the Exec felt a rebrand was in order, and I too was suprised at the level of support for the old name. Having said that the new name was pretty uninspiring and I can understand the attachment to the acronym

In reply to Andy Cairns:
I'm 100% with you on this one. Quite frankly, "climber" describes me better than "mountaineer" and that is true of pretty much everyone else I know.

Lots of routes I that I really aspire to climb are mountaineering ones (i.e. Alpine North faces) but I spend more time winter climbing than mountaineering, more time trad climbing than winter climbing, more time sport climbing than trad and more time climbing indoors than anything else.

In my dreams I might be a mountaineer, in reality I'm a climber and I accept and embrace that.

The issue is one of self identification. If someone has self identified for 40 or 50 years as a "mountaineer" it isn't surprising that they feel strongly about the term. As such, a vocal minority reacted both predictably (in hindsight) and also fairly irrationally to that abrupt announcement last year.

It is not and never was an attack on anyone's identity or implied any disrespect to tradition or history. Unfortunately age does not bring wisdom and the proverb about old dogs has never been truer, it seems, than when applied to aging alpinists.

Thankfully, it is not an entire generation; Sir Chris and others understand the concept of a broad church within climbing and are not stuck in the nineteenth century.

Certain individuals would be well advised to actually demonstrate some knowledge of the deep history of British climbing rather than denigrate the style and manner in which others choose to approach climbing and mountaineering.

Our fellow Climbers' Club member, John Laycock writing back in 1913 is as eloquent now as ever and his sentiments on justifying short outcrop climbs apply equally well to sport routes, bouldering, indoor climbing and competitions:

"It is now generally recognised that rock climbing is an art complete in itself, and not merely a preparation for and adjunct to Alpine Mountaineering. There still survives a remnant of the popular feeling that height - mere elevation above sea level - is perhaps its main objective. Altitude assuredly lends a charm, a sense of solitude; and a long climb calls for more varied knowledge and judgement than a short one. Nevertheless, now and always, the climbing itself is the thing. One can feel quite happy after a day well spent on the rocks, even if one has accomplished nothing of note - which is not to say that one does not feel pleased at the successful conclusion of a long and difficult climb. And as the climbing is the thing, a day on Castle Naze may be better at times than a day on Pillar Rock. Therefore I do not apologise for these climbs - we are proud of them; if climbing is worth doing, they are worth doing, many of them very well worth doing. It is not because I fear comparisons that I say comparisons are odious to both sides. One can respect and adore the Queen of England and still love one's wife."

It just depresses me that many of those who vigorously opposed the name change (and who support the MoNC) are making exactly the "odious comparisons" that Laycock riled against over a century ago.

In reply to Andy Cairns:

The issue was that a tiny minority of BMC members, AKA Keyboard Warriors, didn't like the name and typed lots of outraged words. The BMC didn't know how to react to these keyboard warriors, got jittery and decided to back-track on a perfectly reasonable re-brand.

In reply to rj_townsend:

No, once the level of antipathy became apparent, the BMC launched a wide consultation, there was much discusion at well attended area meetings, and the by far the most popular option was that "Climb Britian" should not be used as the brand name, but could possibly be used for another purpose at a later date.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

BMC. Bouldering, Mountaineering, Climbing!!

In reply to Andy Cairns:

The answer is really nothing to do with specifics, such as the actual suggested new name, or whether the word 'mountaineering' was more suitable than the word 'climb' or 'climbing'. This is a classic case of 'old slippers' syndrome! I'm sure psychologists and sociologists have a name for it! I suspect deep down, people don't really care too much whether this name is better than that name, they just get a bit clingy when change is sprung on to them. It struck a nerve, and suddenly DT and co were a bunch of bad guys. No they aren't, they just got a bit ahead of themselves. Where do they go from here? Give it six months (assuming they're still in office!!!), go through a process which involves a degree of consultation, with a few alternatives put forward for suggestion, and reasons for considering a re-brand, then make the change. Don't think that democracy means we have to vote on it!

Steve

In reply to Andy Cairns:

For me there are 3 issues raised by it:

Firstly its pointless. The BMC as a name is fine. There are plenty of strong brands where the initials are all that is required, long after the initial words the initials stood for appear outdated. You still fly on planes with GE jet engines. You still have the RAC or the AA. The name is the initials, not what it might have stood for once. As it is the BMC has an air of gravitas which is certainly useful when dealing with access.
Secondly you cannot ignore the way it was done. It demonstrates a complete lack of transparency. I wouldn't mind that so much if it wasn't for the third:
Thirdly, in my mind I have an uncomfortable suspicion that this is a harbinger of a change of direction being foisted on the membership. The name change debacle makes it very difficult to take protestations to the contrary very seriously.

In reply to GrahamD:


+1 Agree completely, although I might add a fourth point - that changes to names of large organisations typically involve considerable cost, and, unless the reasons for the change aren't compelling, there are many more important things to spend the money on.

In reply to bpmclimb:

... sorry, I meant ARE compelling ....

In reply to The Ex-Engineer:

"It is now generally recognised that rock climbing is an art complete in itself, and not merely a preparation for and adjunct to Alpine Mountaineering. There still survives a remnant of the popular feeling that height - mere elevation above sea level - is perhaps its main objective. Altitude assuredly lends a charm, a sense of solitude; and a long climb calls for more varied knowledge and judgement than a short one. Nevertheless, now and always, the climbing itself is the thing. One can feel quite happy after a day well spent on the rocks, even if one has accomplished nothing of note - which is not to say that one does not feel pleased at the successful conclusion of a long and difficult climb. And as the climbing is the thing, a day on Castle Naze may be better at times than a day on Pillar Rock. Therefore I do not apologise for these climbs - we are proud of them; if climbing is worth doing, they are worth doing, many of them very well worth doing. It is not because I fear comparisons that I say comparisons are odious to both sides. One can respect and adore the Queen of England and still love one's wife."


Good quote but I fail to see the relevance. Having the view that climbing and walking can be grouped under the broad header of mountaineering is not the same as being against short cragging routes.

In reply to BnB:


+1

Also that the rebrand was completely unnecessary. 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' springs to mind...

In reply to Andy Cairns:

>the Mountaineering Council of Ireland had rebranded as “Mountaineering Ireland”

That's interesting. I didn't even realise there was a MCofI

In reply to Andy Cairns:

Andy,
My take on this is that there is a tension in the management of the BMC (for want of a better word). The BMC is seen by many (most?) as a member-led, democratic representative body rather than a governing body of a sport (think British Cycling....). BUT the BMC is also a 'business'. And in a business the CEO and Chair, along with the directors, hold pretty much total sway. The 'shareholders' are pretty much irrelevant.
I feel that the governance review has to address the basic issue of where does 'the power' lie and how the two elements of 'members' and 'executive committee' relate. Tricky one.
It IS interesting that the 'interface body' (National Council) was once called the Management Committee: possibly a hint of the historic view?

In reply to Michael Gordon:


Don't beat yourself up; there isn't It's been MI for about 8 years now.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

But what is even more impressive is that it has always been an 'island of Ireland' body representing climbers and walkers in both north and south. A model of harmony for us all.....

In reply to Andy Say:


Well that tension is the entire reason the governance review has been set up. But the tension arises not because the BMC is a "business," which makes it sound as though it is the business interests that pull the board one way and non-business interests that pull members the other. Instead, the tension arises because it is a company limited by guarantee and the responsibilities of the directors are dictated by law.

In reply to Steve Wetton:
I think the way the BMC went about it got too many backs up and therefore the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. More engagement and support would have been found if it wasnt foisted on the membership in the way that it was.

I quite liked the BMC (British mountaineering and Climbing) 3rd way option... retains the BMC brand for people looking from the inside out but more accessible and relevant for new people looking from the outside in.

In reply to idiotproof (Buxton MC):

The issue for me was that they were rebranding their main brand to Climb Britain with BMC being the underlying organisation.

Contrast this with the MCoS who rebranded as "Mountaineering Scotland" and created their secondary Climb Scotland brand.

If the BMC had done something similar it would have likely satisfied more involved in the backlash.

In reply to RupertD:

Hi Rupert. I WAS simplifying! I didn't mean to cast the current Exec. as some sort of rapacious hedge fund Board. But when you have that 'tension' (as I've said before) it is possible for frustration to set in when the 'head' really wants to crack on. We have current parallels in the UK.

In reply to Andy Cairns:

Didn't bother me. The Cycling Touring Club and The Ramblers Assc wouldn't go back after changing to: CyclingUK and Ramblers respectively

In reply to zebidee:


Never knew that!! Will there be a 'Climb Ireland' lurking. To go with 'Climb Japan' presumably

In reply to Andy Say:


My experience, by and large, is that this is more of a theoretical issue than an actual one. The reality is, as I'm sure you've noticed, that the exec tends to be made up of a lot of people that have already done their time on the National Council and so see both sides.

In reply to RupertD:

Agreed!

In reply to Trangia:


But wasn't that simply a kneejerk conservative reaction? For existing members it doesn't matter much what it's called since everyone knows what the organization is already.

I think there was also a fear that the name change would imply the BMC would be going in a different direction. Change is often met with dissent, especially when the dissenters have no real power over the outcome.

In reply to stp:


But. In this case.....?

In reply to bpmclimb:



The reason for the change was to broaden appeal, particularly to younger climbers. So it may have ended up costing more - in potential lost new members - by keeping the old name. We'll never know for sure but either way it's a highly speculative point.

In reply to Andy Say:

They protested - which is something anyone can do - and the BMC chose to listen and respond. It's very different to having the power to vote where the outcome is then binding.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


Many individuals have repeatedly made specific comments about indoor and especially competition climbing that are EXACTLY the type of comparisons that Laycock dismisses as both irrelevant and odious.

Whilst they can come across as rather patronising, condescending and the arguments are often poorly disguised attempts to justify their own endeavours in the face of a changed modern world where the teenagers at most walls in the country already climb technically harder than they ever did, the broader narrative has a classic populist appeal. Most keen recreational trad climbers are surprising receptive to arguments that trad is somehow BETTER, despite the obvious falsehood of such a proposition. It is just human nature to want to believe that we are special but as with racism, sexism, nationalism and other exceptionalisms, it deserves to be called out for the utter nonsense it is.

This is where Laycock's writing has particular resonance, if applied directly to modern concerns:

"if climbing is worth doing, [indoor routes] are worth doing, many of them very well worth doing."
"if climbing is worth doing, [climbing competitions] are worth doing, many of them very well worth doing."

The analogy might have been too subtle; someone who makes value judgements against climbing either indoors or as a competitive sport is as equally moronic as those in bygone generations who dismissed gritstone climbs as not being real climbing. [I had been trying desperately not to directly insult various people, but unfortunately it seems you have to eventually call a spade a spade.]

In reply to The Ex-Engineer:

The trouble is you don't know if he would have held the same opinions regarding bolts, indoor walls and competitions. He was defending quality routes on rock (albeit short ones), not human creations on plastic. I'm not having a go at indoor walls etc but it is never a good idea to assume you know what someone's stance would be, particularly someone from a very different era.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

... now and always, the climbing itself is the thing.

To my mind that is pretty much unequivocal.

He explicitly dismisses; solitude, length, and requirements for knowledge and judgement as being irrelevant. In fact, exactly the arguments commonly used against any and all of, indoor climbing, bouldering and sport climbing.

The underlying premise of the whole passage is that if any climbing is worth doing, then all climbing is worth doing. That is an extremely clear, simple and powerful message regardless of when it was expressed.

In reply to The Ex-Engineer:

Still not convinced I'm afraid. I think there is a good case to be made in those words for outdoor bouldering (length being unimportant) but applying it to artificial walls seems too big a leap considering he would never have come across nor even perhaps envisaged such a thing. When someone makes a statement such as "the climbing is the thing", they are still always speaking from the viewpoint of their own experiences and knowledge. Of course he doesn't specify 'outdoor climbing', as no alternative existed.

In reply to Andy Cairns:

Some of the issues that grated with me:

The company charged with the consultation backed up their desire for a name change with reasons that I felt did not merit the change.
- Not enough young people were joining : Did they give enough weight to the fact that young people could be members through University Clubs, or that younger people in general aren't so drawn to associations. It was as if there was a bit too much emphasis placed on being trendy to appeal to young people.

- People outside the sport did not recognise the BMC as it wasn't clear enough. (Although interestingly many marketing companies go by really odd names too): The BMC is there in the main to represent its members. I am sure I might not have known the name previously, but as a walker and climber I now do... which is more to the point. Should the BMC be all about getting new unconnected people into the sport or representing the members who are? (this was highlighted in many comments, who felt the 'climb britain' title still had potential as a marketing campaign within the BMC)

So lots of info by the consultants to support a new title, but then just reverted to the bland form of verb/noun, used by just about every organisation these days... it wasn't even a surprise.

Lastly, that clunky font. Some of the graphic work was nice - but hardly a million miles away from the current BMC branding anyway.

In reply to Andy Cairns:

Either way, what ever they plan to call themselves it should probably refer to England and Wales rather than the 'British whatever' or 'something Britain'.

Scotland and Ireland are covered, the BMC only covers England and Wales and this should be reflected in the choice of name.

In reply to Tobes:

There is an agreement that at international level the BMC does, in fact, represent Great Britain (not sure about Eire). So even though I agree England and Cymru might be more accurate the 'B' has a distinct purpose.

In reply to Tobes:

And 'Climb Cymru' was trademarked

In reply to Andy Say:

Thanks for some clarification there Andy. Between whom is this agreement and is this in writing somewhere?

Regards

In reply to Michael Gordon: Indoor climbing was well established before the 1st world war - traverse of the snug (not sure if this is the correct room) at the Wasdale Head Inn for example

In reply to Tobes:

Tobes, it IS in writing. I'm afraid I'm away from good internet to seek the relevant document. But it may just be a BMC / MCofS agreement.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Ha! Yes, I wonder if billiard tables saw many traverses?

In reply to stp:


Yes, if a name change led to larger membership then there would be more income from subscriptions, which might or might not offset the costs of rebranding, depending on numbers. On the other hand, if rebranding alienated existing members to the extent that a proportion of them didn't renew their subscriptions, then revenue would be lost. As you say, highly speculative. By contrast, the costs of rebranding are certain and inevitable, and in order to justify them a high degree of confidence in a positive outcome is required - it is by me, anyway, as it's my money they're doing it with.

In reply to bpmclimb:


Would climbers be so puerile as to throw their toys out of the pram if their playhouse was no longer coloured in 70s brown as it had finally been repainted in a brighter colour? A bit sad, if so.

In reply to john arran:

Yeah it seems highly unlikely. They join for what the BMC does for them, not because they like the name. So it would be bizarre and inconsistent if they left merely because they didn't like the new name. The benefits would remain the same.

In reply to stp:


And now many people are not so certain that they know what the BMC does for them.

In reply to john arran:




When I referred to the (hypothetical) alienation of existing members by rebranding, to the extent that they leave the BMC, I was imagining people who were motivated by two sets of reasons:

a) that there had been a lack of appropriate consultation and therefore a betrayal of trust, to the extent that the placing of future trust was difficult or impossible.

b) that the proposed new name strongly implied an unwelcome future set of decisions and general direction of the organisation.

I didn't think of people having such a problem with the name per se, purely on a gut level, that they felt they had to leave; that would seem a bit extreme, although I suppose that motivation is entirely possible too. Interesting that you immediately zeroed in on this last (and far less likely) category, and then proceeded to be rude about them - not sure what's going on there!

In reply to Michael Gordon:


"Many, however, in whom the Hill Difficulty arouses no fear, will be content to stop by the wayside and wrestle daily with some Apollyon of a ' rock problem.' There are some who find all mountains dull which have no wrong way up, who will talk for hours about a billiard-table traverse, and dismiss the ascent of Mont Blanc from Chamonix in a few contemptuous words ; and if they succeed in such endeavours, they are for hailing themselves the lords of all the earth."

From "Oxford Mountainering Essays", edited by Arnold H. M. Lunn, 1912 (online at: https://archive.org/details/oxfordmountainee00lunnuoft )

Bouldering, indoor bouldering, and even the time-honoured tradition of snarking at boulderers! And, as one may infer from the title -- Oxford being short on real rocks -- some buildering too.

The book is dedicated to Geoffrey Winthrop Young, who apparently provided "constant help and advice" to the editor.

I actually found this accidentally while Googling to try to check my recollection that one of the hotels in Snowdonia had a well-established table traverse -- still haven't chased that down ...

In reply to bpmclimb:

Your point a) is entirely valid, although I think the current situation is a very long way from that.
Your point b) is curious. Unless the BMC renamed itself to something like the Tiddlywinks Federation or the British Bouldering Club, it's likely that any inferred change of future direction is very likely to be unfounded. It's true that young people respond differently to different names, and a simple generic renaming to appear more relevant to younger climbers would most likely implicitly convey nothing at all about future 'focus' or 'direction', but sceptical observers could nevertheless read that much into it if they so chose.
Not sure where the '"rude" bit was in my post. Are you sure you're not being over sensitive?

In reply to Andy Say:


Andy, I've written to the BMC to request details of this agreement. Will post here when I have something of note.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Reading further, there's even someone (anonymous, presumably to avoid the ire of the college porters) protesting about how climbing on artificial walls (the buildings of Oxford) is looked down on by those with access to "real rock":

" [...] but there is hardship when brother turns on brother (big bully on baby brother) ; climbers there are that have the Alps for their pleasure, and are privileged in acquaintance with the princely among mountains, who yet grudge the poor stay-at-home his sincerest flattery, tell him he is to be despised for his ascents, rebuked for his foolhardiness, and chastised for his disobedience. "

There follows a rather charming explication of the aesthetic beauties to be found roof-climbing, and its usefulness as physical and mental training for "Dolomites and Cumberland climbs".

In reply to john arran:



Point a) opinion seems divided about the current situation. There are quite a few current BMC members who feel pretty negative about the BMC right now. I think the BMC leadership would be unwise to underestimate that.

Point b) again, divided opinion - there are members who equate the rebranding with a shift in priorities, weighted towards Olympics, competitions, indoor, commercial, sport. This may be a vague suspicion rather than a proven link, but remember that these may very well also be point a) members - those who suspect the BMC leadership of having hidden agendas.

Well, "puerile", "toys out of the pram", "a bit sad" all seemed a bit disparaging about people who may have sound reasoning behind their attitudes, hence my use of the word "rude". But it's no big deal, I was just making an observation - I don't feel personally offended or annoyed or anything like that

In reply to bpmclimb:


I suppose my point really boils down to whether people's attitudes do indeed have sound reasoning and are also based on real events. If so, we aren't hearing much of that reasoning and factual justification is notably lacking. All too often nowadays it seems people are too easily willing to believe in conspiracy or subterfuge, when little or no justification for that is apparent.

In reply to john arran:

I posted a link to what I thought was my most cogent response to the original renaming saga.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=646638#x8360304

Here's the comment in full. I still think it's fairly cogent.

Okay, maybe it's time I took some time to make my point as cogently as I can.

Rebranding is a dangerous exercise. You take an existing, established and recognised brand and throw it away, and replace it with something new. You hope that this rebranding will somehow magically improve your brand awareness, possibly because that's what a rebranding consultant told you.

The problem is that magic doesn't happen. You have to work very hard to establish the new name amongst those who already know your brand. And you have to advertise/publicise your new brand to those who you are trying to reach for the first time. Marathon/Snickers. Opal Fruits/Err... Royal Mail/Consignia.

So, how does a new name mean that you will suddenly reach a new audience? Does the new name better reflect the activities you engage in? From the responses I've seen here, on the BMC's facebook page and elsewhere, it seems the majority of members who have commented don't feel that the new identity represents them.

Replacing a brand has simple costs; yes, all promotional material have to be redesigned, even if you rely on natural wastage to simply use up existing stock before you order new. Design isn't free.

If you want to improve the awareness of your organisation, and what it does, then why not simply promote what your organisation does, using the established identity? Really, how does a new identity help increase recognition? If you want to engage with wall climbers and competitive climbers, engage with them. At the wall. If your existing engagement campaigns aren't working, find out why, and improve those campaigns.

My fear is that this will be an entirely pointless exercise, that will not improve awareness, or, more likely, reduce and dilute awareness by discarding an existing identity. And the rebranding exercise will consume time and money that could be better spent promoting the existing identity.

If you want to create a brand to promote competitive climbing (which is, after all, what Sport England are really about: remember, they really only support grass roots engagement in Olympic sports, to serve as a feeder to UK Sport), then maybe 'Climb Britain' is an appropriate brand under which to do it. But please, don't rebrand the entire British Mountaineering Council to do it. Babies and bathwater comes to mind.

It's a shame that genuine concerns such as mine have been laughed at and derided by officers of the BMC.

In reply to slab_happy:


Will probably be the Pen-Y-Gwryd at the foot of Pen-Y-Pass as that's where the crowd used to hang out 100-110 years ago.

In reply to Andy Cairns:

Hi Andy
A big point for me is that a key role of the BMC is to negotiate, secure and defend access to British crags and mountains, and that the "British Mountaineering Council" would have a lot more authority than "Climb Britain"

In reply to captain paranoia:

If you want to create a brand to promote competitive climbing (which is, after all, what Sport England are really about: remember, they really only support grass roots engagement in Olympic sports, to serve as a feeder to UK Sport),

Unfortunately wrong. As per many other posts by several people.
Sport England fund all sorts of sport. They are about participation and uptake, activity and health. Many of the sports they fund are nothing to do with the olympics; they do not fund elite sport at all. UK Sport fund Elite sport. If they do not think a sport is likely to produce olympic / world medals, they will not fund it. There are only 3 sports funded by Sport England at an Elite level. Netball is one, I cant remember the other two, but a quick google should suffice.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Thanks fore copying that. My one immediate response would be to suggest that you have a mistaken view of the remit of Sport England. My impression is that its remit is vastly wider than feeder programmes for Olympic sports. Unfortunately, that seems to be at the base of much or the argument that rebranding necessarily indicates a change of priorities, which I'm pretty sure isn't the case. As far as I'm aware the BMC continues to represent all climbers (which now includes those climbing Snowdon as well as those climbing plastic) just like it always has done.

In reply to Ian W:

Yes, I agree that my assertion about Sport England posted last year (and copied here) is incorrect. I acknowledged that on the other thread:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=660614#x8526457

I missed the significance of the highlighted phrase in this Sport England comment:

"Netball is one of the three non-Olympic sports to receive Sport England funding to support its elite and high performance programme"


Did you mean to say "There are only 3 non-Olympic sports funded by Sport England at an Elite level"? That's certainly my reading of the Sport England statement comment taken from:

https://www.sportengland.org/news-and-features/news/2013/january/25/histori...

Or maybe they meant that, since there is no funding from UK Sport for Elite athletes in non-Olympic sports, that Sport England provide that funding for three such sports, netball being one of them. That would be fairly sensible.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Not sure whether the 3 sports are olympic or not - i know netball isnt, but dont know about the other two. I think those 3 get elite funding from sport england because they are widely practiced in the UK but not across enough countries to be included in the olympics, and therefore get special treatment.
NB I have no problem with this treatment; my only beef with sport funding in this country is that there is not enough at the mid / lower level, and far too much in incredibly specialised olympic medal only sports (think bobsledding / tea tray riding).

In reply to Ian W:


No. You are just totally, totally wrong. Sport England may well fund things like 'talent development' but i would guess they don't give a toss about climbing competitions.

In reply to Andy Say:

Andy, please dont associate me with what Captain P said!

In reply to Ian W:


Well, learn to quote properly, then...

In reply to Michael Hood:

Yes, that was my guess (or Pen-y-Pass, maybe?), but I haven't been able to chase the reference down yet.

I also have a vague recollection of a mantelpiece mantel challenge (IIRC, part of the challenge being not to dislodge any of the objects on the mantelpiece) somewhere.

Of course, Geoffrey Winthrop Young himself wrote "The Roof-Climber's Guide To Trinity" in 1899. So arguably, the concept of climbing on artificial objects/structures (albeit exposed to the elements) not only has a long history, it has the personal endorsement of the man who pioneered the idea of the British Mountaineering Council.

In reply to slab_happy:

Some good stuff there, cheers!

In reply to Ian W & john arran:

My mistaken point about Sport England's remit is only a minor element of my post. I think the rest of my points are still relevant.

I'm now happy that Sport England"s involvement in the brand awareness review was not entirely directed at promoting competitive climbing, and more about trying to use the BMC to promote activities within the BMC's 'remit'. But I'm still not convinced the Climb Britain is a better name...

I note the comment in the other thread about Sport England being impressed with the BMC's proposed hillwalking strategy. Would hillwalkers identify with 'Climb Britain' more than with 'the BMC'...? Again, why would a name change be necessary; if you want to attract hillwalkers, just promote the BMC's activities towards hillwalkers.

In reply to captain paranoia:

And thats fine - I personally think the name change as part of a rebrand is better in order to appeal to those who regard the BMC as a bit old and dusty. However, as other s have said, th substance is more important than a name. As long as the organisation is dynamic and forward looking and all encompassing. Hillwalking to bouldering and everything in between.

In reply to captain paranoia:


sorry, i'm obviously an amateur keyboard warrior; i need to practice more......actually, i think i copy / pasted, in excel style (can you tell i'm a beancounter.......)

In reply to Ian W:

There; you managed a proper quote...

In reply to Ian W:
The reason that people regard the BMC as 'old and dusty' is that the BMC seems unable to promote itself and get across all the good things done by it's staff and volunteers to help people enjoy the outdoor experience, and also the work done to help maintain and improve the environment that people wish to enjoy.
Instead of a rebrand they need someone to publicise the BMC's good works in all areas so that people can appreciate how much effort is involved. How many hours a month does Henry Folkard spend on access issues? What about the other access reps.
Come on stop hiding the BMC light under a bushel. Get some publicity out there and get the magnificent organisation and it's good works known far and wide.

In reply to johncook:


What's the evidence that people regard the BMC as 'old and dusty'? The membership numbers are as high and as healthy as they've ever been, aren't they?

In reply to captain paranoia:


Why, thank you! Practice makes perfect......

In reply to Ian W:

Bob sledding. A new sport for the AGM?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Just quoting an earlier post, although the BMC is rubbish at promoting it's good work!

In reply to Andy Say:

Is Bob Sledding one of the 'BMC 30'?

In reply to johncook:


Ah right, thanks. Slightly worrying that that quote comes from somebody associated with the BMC.

In the context of this thread, this reminds me of Dave Turnbull's note from last year which said "Why rebrand? To continue to represent the best interests of all climbers and walkers now – and into the future – the BMC had to modernise and change."

The phrase 'modernise and change' is - of itself - completely meaningless; but the question of what exactly any such modernization and change might actually involve is one which explains some of the unease about the whole rebranding exercise.


For myself, that doesn't bother me. I'd prefer to have the organization just quietly get on with its remit: it needn't waste time shouting about it. The current approach seems to be working in terms of membership numbers; I think they've increased significantly over the past ten or so years.

In reply to captain paranoia:

I don't find the reposted comment regarding rebranding cogent at all and here's why.

The whole comment is about rebranding in very general terms. It points to the problems with rebranding and concludes from that, don't rebrand, anything, ever. Yes of course rebranding costs money, new brand awareness takes time etc, etc.. But sometimes it makes sense to rebrand, despite the inherent costs and problems, particularly when looking at long term trends. It even mentions three very well known brands that have done exactly that. Do we really think that such brands rebranded oblivious to the difficulties implied?

I also don't accept the argument about competitive climbing because there is nothing about competition implied in the term 'Climb Britain'. It's a very general and wide ranging term that will conjure up different images for different people depending on their personal experiences in climbing. For me, as a rock climber, it makes me think of the myriad of crags there are dotted around the British Isles.

In reply to stp:

Rebranding in general will always be met with some resistance, thats just one of the things thats part and parcel of this kind of change.

But - if the reasons for change are valid and can stand scrutiny, then its easier to weather the storm, and many who first resist can accept over time.

The subsequent (immediate) messages from the BMC post launch, seemed a bit muddled to say the least. First saying this is the new name, then no, we are still BMC. It felt like an agency had pitched it, and then shoed in reasons to back it up.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Maybe if the BMC shouted about it's good works more, people would be aware of what it does and as a result membership numbers would increase, allowing even more action for the good of all.
I am not a member just to get insurance or discounts or even so I can adopt the moral high ground. I believe in the work the BMC does and promote the BMC wherever possible. I have spoken to many people who know the name, BMC, but know nothing about it's functions. The name/logo is known, the benefits don't seem to be getting disseminated to many, other than the small number who attend area meetings, of which I am one.
A big effort should be made to publicise the excellent work of the paid staff and the volunteers!
Rant over!

In reply to johncook and Andy Say

I like your thinking!

In reply to Rob Parsons:



Why is that?

In reply to stp:

A company I worked for in the USA went through a rebranding process. The 'expert' expensive consultants said there would be a few problems initially but things would soon improve. The first year sales were down, some improvement by the second year and back to where they were before the rebrand by the third year, with the next two subsequent years continuing the steady improvement percentage experienced before the rebrand. The consultants exclaimed their joy at a massive increased percentage in sales, using the post rebrand year as their baseline, not the pre-rebrand year, which would have shown a relatively low improvement, in-line with 10 year forecasts from before the rebrand.
If you want an example research the sales data for when Marathon bars became Snickers. It took 3 years for sales to return to pre-rename levels.

In reply to johncook:

To be fair it's a lot better at this than it was 15 years ago. Have a look at a climbing mag from back then (as I often do when having a brew at the wall) and you'll be hard pressed to find anything. In OTE for example, all I found was an small advert for insurance in the classified section.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I agree, but they need to build on the improvement. I have many of those mags at home (Yeah, I'm an old wrinkly hoarder!) There was more in the mags from the late 60's early 70's than in later years.
I also read the old mags at Awesome, Sheffield when having my hot chocolate and cheese and bacon toastie (good value by the way!), as they mostly cover the years when I didn't buy the mags in the 80's onwards!

In reply to Ian W:


The quote from you is: " I personally think the name change as part of a rebrand is better in order to appeal to those who regard the BMC as a bit old and dusty."

But you're directly involved in the BMC, and you've also said on these threads that your aim is increase the profile of competition climbing within that organization. (That's my paraphrase; if you object to it, then let's dig up the direct quote.)

I hope you can see the potential for unease there.

In reply to johncook:


Have a look out for a copy of mountain from about '74 - it contains a request from the BMC for "a lady with first class secretarial ability...If she is a climber well and good".

It also contains some excellent rants from Ken on seat belts and the inevitable failure of Bonington's forthcoming Everest expedition

In reply to johncook:

That's interesting to know.

With the rebranding of the BMC though it seems like much less of a problem than most rebranding for the simple reason that it's a membership organization. Everyone who is a member will know that the new name is the same as the old BMC because they'll be getting stuff through the post telling them so. This is quite different to one off consumer purchases like Snickers bars.

The only group to potentially miss the name change would be those who drop out of climbing/BMC membership before the name change and then come back to it after the new name has been established. I imagine that to be a fairly small number of people.

Hi John
Thanks for the comments! We promote all our work with our web news, email list, membership emails, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, BMC TV films, YouTube, UKBouldering and UKClimbing.

We also have Summit magazine, the yearly members' handbook, a column in Climber mag and advertise in print mags such as Climber, Climb, Trail, Professional Mountaineer and also guidebooks. We also have local area meetings, local festivals and major events such as Cliffhanger and Keswick Mountain Festival.

You’re right, though. We’re great at talking to people who are already aware of the BMC, but it’s challenging to extend that reach and take our messages mainstream. We do manage the jump sometimes with a particular project (such as Mend our Mountains) but generally it’s harder won, harder to control and (no matter how much we’re proud of it) won’t involve detailing Henry’s impressive access hours.

However with the rise and rise of social media, and the shift away from TV, the good news is that national media coverage isn’t quite as essential as it once was, as there are other ways of connecting. It’s hard to talk about mainstream coverage without mentioning the brand too. But I won’t get into that…

Another powerful way that we can spread the word is through our members. For anyone interested in the BMC, the best thing they can do is follow us:

https://www.facebook.com/BritishMountaineeringCouncil/

https://www.instagram.com/teambmc

https://twitter.com/Team_BMC

We also have specialist Twitter accounts, very active local area Facebook pages and even Snapchat:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/social-media-and-the-bmc

In reply to stp:


Marathon and Opal Fruits weren't re-branding; they were global brand re-alignments, to use the same name for the same product in different markets. As johncook points out, these weren't necessarily successful, either. Nothing else about the products changed.

Consignia was such a 'success' that they reverted to Royal Mail.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2002480.stm

An example closer to my field is Hewlett Packard, who used to be a leader in electronic test instruments. When they decided to split out their computing business, they decided to keep the HP name for their computers, and re-brand their test instrument business to Agilent. We eventually got used to that. Now they have re-branded again, and, even as an active electronic design engineer, I do not know what they are now called. I googled; 'Keysight', apparently:

http://simmtester.com/page/news/shownews.asp?num=15890

Similar examples can be found in semiconductor manufacturers Motorola, Philips and AT&T.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Absolutely no objection to your paraphrase; its spot on.

And yes, i can see the potential for unease on some peoples part......but then again, I am uneasy with the thought that the bmc may not keep up with the changes in the climbing world.But our respective unease all adds to the various pulls on bmc direction and resource that eventually leads to progress in one direction or another........

In reply to captain paranoia: One successful rebrand was Anderson Consulting (after its split from Arthur Anderson) to Accenture (I think I've remembered correctly).

Then along came Exxon which took down Arthur Anderson (one of the biggest accountancy firms in the world) and the people at Accenture must have been thinking - phew that was close - good job on the rebrand.

In reply to Tobes:

In reply to Andy Say:



Here we go, see below. Answers my question pretty well I'd say.

"Hello Toby

Thanks for your enquiry.
Mountaineering Ireland is the national representative body for the island of Ireland.
There is a longstanding agreement between the BMC and our sister organisation Mountaineering Scotland that the BMC represents the interests of mountaineers at the international federations such as the UIAA and the IFSC.
There is a memorandum of agreement between the BMC and Mountaineering Scotland, and we have continuing dialogue about representation on the international stage.
Best regards, Tony Ryan"