UKC

I notice that the BMC are advertising for a Growth Marketing Coordinator.

In the realm of corporate bullsh*t bingo, this job title must tick quite a few boxes.

It's quite possible that the tasks this role has to undertake are quite reasonable, necessary and justified, but does the BMC really have to be sucked into all this corporate carp?

I believe it's to replace member of staff who has left. I've no idea about marketing, maybe it's just the industry standard job title for the role? I think "corporate madness" is laying it on a bit thick..

Of all the things to get upset about, is this really worth it?

Something smells fishy ....

That's knocked him off his perch.

I'd say it's at least worth noting.  Titles and language tend to reflect the culture and focus of organisations.  Is this what we want the BMC to look and behave as?

And if it was run less professionally I expect the same people would be complaining about that too. They can never win.

You think gobbledegook titles reflect "professionally" run organisations? 

To me it says nothing about professionalism. It is saying that they see themselves as a business trying to expand a market to allow growth, or something similar - a bit like Tesco or Mountain Equipment presumably do.  Personally I'd rather they focused on supporting climbers and mountaineers, although I realise other think differently

It's a membership organisation that, with the increased numbers of people wandering around the hills, should be expected to grow.  To do that, you need to reach the people  - hence growth marketing, I suppose, and someone to co-ordinate.  What else would you call it?

Is it gobbledegook, or a job title that reflects the role and is consistent within the marketing industry? (Genuine question, I don't know, I'm an engineer).

They do seem to be focussed on supporting climbers and mountaineers but to do that they need to remain financially viable and maintain/increase membership. they can do this by doing good stuff (they do) but also they need to make people aware of the good stuff they do (they are getting better). They also need to stay relevant to/attract younger climbers. Having a role that covers this, regardless of the title, seems important to me?

Well I don't want the BMC to expand the "market" because I don't want it to see its members as a market, so I wouldn't want the post at all.  If it is necessary, something in English such as marketing manager.

No need to get crabby about it.

If your objection is members and potential members being considered a “market” then surely “marketing” is the word that you should be objecting to rather than “growth”. Or is it growth of the membership that you are objecting to?

Surely the alleged need to constantly grow is the ultimate corporate BS myth?

It's both.  I don't mind the BMC (or numbers enjoying being outside) growing naturally.  However, I don't think this should be an aim of the BMC so I don't think they should be marketing with the aim of growth!  I also think the job title is nonsense regardless of whether it's a good idea..

Nail on head.

I agree but without a job description it’s not apparent whether the role is to increase the size of the market (i.e. promote waking and climbing) or just to convert more of the existing market to join the BMC. I presume the latter as the former is happening already. 
Possibly the clumsy title is to distinguish it from other marketing coordinator roles they already have?

Hi it is a standard job title in the marketing industry.  If you look on LinkedIn you will see hundreds of jobs advertised for growth marketing managers.  

Growth marketing managers tend to need more advanced skills in digital and web analytics etc. than general marketing managers - I assume the BMC want someone with those skills to help acquire new members.   

Mrs Puzzle works for the council and in the Housing team there's a Making Best Use Of Stock Officer.

At least we know vaguely what these people are doing for a living.

I once dealt with the Assistant Branch Managers Assistant at a Building Society...still makes me chuckle.

Growth Marketing Coordinator is neither one thing not the other in respect of  corporate speak.Its a reasonable role unless you object to eveything the BMC does as a matter of principle.

When on-the-job training as an electrical engineer, some bright soul decided we should be called "Foundation Engineers". Cue us cluelessly fielding questions about concrete cubes all day everyday.

As Galpinos mentioned it is a replacement position. The job is responsible for the analytical aspects of digital (website, social media, email) marketing including which campaigns work and which don’t and segmenting members by interests, demographics so content is more targeted all with a view to retaining existing members and gaining new ones.

As marketing jobs go it’s a pragmatic one even if the title sounds woolly. 

The job description is here: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/Recruitment/Growth%20Marketing%20Coord...

Fair enough, you're entitled to an opinion.  Assuming you're a member then you have a vote at the AGM.  However I suspect most members will want to see the BMC extending its reach amongst walkers and climbers, in order to better represent them and in order to remain financially sustainable.

Again, you're entitled to an opinion, but it is a standard job title which will tell most people (among those who need to know, anyway) what the person's responsibilities are.

Like it or not, the BMC is a national organisation with a multi-million pound budget, and it needs to run properly in accordance with recognised standards of corporate governance, to satisfy both internal and external pressures.  Many of its recent travails have arisen because of its previous failures and subsequent attempts to rectify them.  Yes, it's boring as hell and has little to do with enjoying the outdoors, but thankfully a few people are willing to deal with it (for which they get much criticism and little thanks) while the rest of us can ignore it.

Do you have a better suggestion for the job title? 

Oh actually I see you believe we shouldn't be encouraging new people to go climbing , but should leave it as a closed shop, members only

No, I said the opposite actually.  But carry on.

Bullshit jobs titles are not a requirement of corporate governance.

Are you sure that you understand what a closed shop is?

It is a pretty standard descripton and really nothing exceptional.

"Reacher Out" perhaps 🙂.

More seriously, anything that avoids the word "marketing" really; I think what people find unsettling is the idea that the BMC sees us as targets for flogging stuff rather than representing members and providing services.

I'm not fan of b*llshit bingo, but in this case isn't it obvious? It's someone to co-ordinate their Growth Marketing as distinct from Digital Marketing or Marketing.

I'll throw one back - we had a Director of Operational Excellence. No direct reports. We don't anymore.

lol. Marketing is not selling stuff, that is sales. You need a Sales Growth Coordinator for that. . 

nobody would bat an eyelid if this role was “membership data and digital coordinator” which is broadly what it is .

Agreed, but why is this a bullshit title?  It seems fairly descriptive of the role, and apparently is well understood in the profession.

If it is "marketing" you object to, if you have paid any attention to what has been coming out of the BMC recently you should be aware that one of their main objectives is to get more walkers and climbers to join the BMC.  That is the principal aim of their marketing, not selling us stuff.  Although if I can get guidebooks, maps, insurance and other products from the BMC at a discount, what is wrong with that?

OK, perhaps that was a bit strong. But going back to my first post, that sort of language indicates where the organisation is about, and it doesn't suggest advocating for mountaineering.

Yes, and I do object to that.

It's put him in his plaice

I think, when most people think of a market, they think of selling stuff don't they? Maybe it means something different in corporate bullshit lingo though and I genuinely don't know what!

Probably not, so why not call it that rather than conjuring up the idea of, well, a market - a place where people are selling stuff.

Sales and marketing are different skill sets if you like. The way I look at it is.A sales person could sell ice to an eskimo. A marketing person will have identifed that you could sell ice to an eskimo and there is a need/market to do it.

Most organisation who get that will have different roles accordingly.

You are misunderstanding what 'marketing' means, it's nothing (much) to do with 'selling' or 'flogging'. In simplistic terms you can split marketing into 'inbound' (i.e., collecting information about what your target audience wants/needs from you)  and 'outbound' marketing (i.e., disseminating information about what can/might do). Nothing about 'selling' or 'products'.

Yes, you can try and invent some new anarchist-climber-friendly-non-corporate-bullshit terminology, but if you actually want to attract professionals (i.e., people who know what they are doing) you have to talk their language rather than denigrate them and their skills.

I clearly am! It is just that, in my naive way, the word market means loads of stalls in a town's market square with people flogging vegetables shouting stuff like "only two pounds for 5 cabbages!"

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

That may be fine, but the trouble is that when the corporate lingo leaks out to anarchist-anti-bullshit-climbers, they feel alienated (see this thread) and all this sort of stuff seems to be risking damaging, however unfairly, the BMC's reputation. Not sure what can be done about it though....

You too may be right, but I think that says more about the 'anarchist-climbers' than it does about the real world.

As for 'bullshit' - it must be one of those irregular English verbs: I use jargon (for clarity), you speak bullshit (for misdirection). Doesn't really matter if it corporate, science, engineering, marketing or for that matter climbing - we all have our own jargon and terminology which will get innocently - and sometimes willfully - misunderstood.

I think the root of the problem is that many (anarchist)-climbers go climbing in order to escape the "real world".

Out of curiosity, why?  Surely if the BMC is to represent the interests of climbers and walkers the more of those who join the better?

Two reasons:  Firstly organisations can be broad or deep but not really both.  I'd prefer the BMC to represent mountaineers/climbers (quite a niche group) well and in depth and focus on their needs which are different to walkers and other.  There are others organisations (e.g. Ramblers) which do breadth better for outdoor activities.

Second, actively encouraging outdoor participation leads to superficial engagement that is damaging (see reports of the Lake District etc. this summer).  This isn't saying restrict the BMC to "proper" climbers; it's saying don't try and push people in to climbing, let them find it and then welcome them.

I certainly did when I was working (particularly with marketing people)! But to escape something you have to also accept the fact that it exists, and possibly even for a good reason. All getting a bit existential now.

Quite.

“ Growth” is only part of the job insofar as it is the overall function of the membership team to keep and grow membership. Maybe the Marketing Manager tagged “Growth” on the job title to help gain approval from the Board for the appointment…

The 'superficial engagement' is happening whatever the BMC does. The best it can do is try to make sure that as many of those 'superficial engagers' learn to embrace the ethos of caring for others and the environment and become "proper" walker/climbers/runners/whatever. Call it social responsibility or whatever, but I can see why the BMC isn't just retreating into a 'it's-not-my-problem' mindset.

Maybe the bg question is why do they need to be different roles?

A good sales person will surely  identify the market and then roll their sleeves up and get on with the really important job of selling.

You probably need to put that view forward in 1944.

In my experience good sales people and good marketing people are very different characters and have quite non-overlapping skill sets. Good marketing has more in common with engineering than with sales. Sadly there's an awful lot of 'bad' marketing people around - quite often failed engineers and failed sales people who think that anyone can do marketing.

Marketing is primarily about analysis and communications. Sales is about relationship management.

It's OK Geoffrey Winthrop-Young did it for me:

"aimed to represent the interests of climbing clubs and primarily maintain access for climbers to climb on a mountain, a crag, or even a sea cliff in England and Wales."

OK, so I had a few moments and clicked on it.

One "specific work area" is:

"Take responsibility for the sales funnel to get members with optimisation and experiments through testing to increase conversion rate."

And another:

"Work with the Membership Team and Online Communications Co-ordinator to develop and optimised the user journey for BMC Travel Insurance and membership customer experiences."

As a reasonably well educated lay person, should I have any expectation of being able to understand this? And am I correct that there's at least two fairly basic grammar and spelling errors?

Martin

That's just shoddy, regardless of what's trying to communicate.

I was right! It does have something to do with sales - no idea what though.

I'd rather the BMC represented the interests of 'climbers' than 'clubs'. All very insular and Victorian (not unreasonably). And if your beloved 'mountains, crags, or even a sea cliffs' get invaded and trashed by all those 'superficial engagers' (OK, perhaps not sea-cliffs), I take it that that not the BMC's issue? Well you could go with a Victorian 'exclusive access' agenda (good luck with that) or you could take a wider view and accept that you (the BMC) are actually part of a rich and diverse society and have a part to play beyond your narrow parish.

It's difficult to draw a line between "hillwalkers" and "mountaineers" in a UK context, unless you confine the latter to the greater ranges.  The sort of hillwalkers the BMC is aiming at are mostly participating in adventurous walking and scrambling in the UK's mountains and probably wouldn't see the Ramblers Association as a natural home. Perhaps this shows my own prejudices, but for me "Ramblers" conjures up images of the groups of bobble-hatted and pole-bedecked pensioners I see walking my local footpaths and lanes, not someone on Crib Goch or the Ring of Steall.

I think the BMC's efforts are mainly directed towards getting people who are already climbers and walkers to join, rather than campaigning to bring new people into these activities, although of course it does provide advice for those who are interested, including directing them towards clubs.

The BMC's stated strategic purpose, agreed by the Board after consultation through the various committees, forums and area meetings, is to "represent the interests of climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers and inspire all generations".  If you don't agree with that then it is a democratic organisation, and you can try to change it.

It’s already happened. Once they took Sport England’s money the die was cast.

That's a pretty childish response to what I wrote. 

The BMC was formed from clubs, hence the wording back then at its formation (that MG knows full well hasn't applied that way for, I'm guessing, longer than he has lived).

The advertised role is as Simon describes it: a direct replacement of someone who has got another job elsewhere, who did useful digital based marketing work for the organisation.

In recent years the BMC can be looked at as being in the unusual position of shrinking, in proportion to participation growth in the activities it covers. Growth in that sense is at least trying to maintain a critical mass that enables it to influence government etc on its shared values, especially access and conservation.

I'm aware of that, and the ructions that led to that position.  If the majority are happy with competitions and marketing etc.  I guess that's fine, but it's not for me

My point was it was formed to represent climbers and mountaineers, not a wider group as Nick suggested. 

The last time you posted on Sport England you didn't seem to know who they even were as you were claiming they funded climbing in the Olympics. As such I think you need to explain a bit more clearly what you mean.

For at least the last decade, since I became aware of survey evidence, the most common broad activity undertaken by BMC members was hill walking (from mountain scrambling to less serious rambling in the hills). These are mainly long standing members.

Probably an evem more common activity is eating breakfast, that doesn't mean the BMC shouldn't expand to represent breakfast eaters and have growth marketing coordinators to entice them to join.

I do feel for your breakfast access and conservation issues.

I presume my dislike is from someone who understands the jargon and would defend its use here. Would they be kind enough to translate it for the rest of us?

Martin

Maybe not, but it isn’t aimed at you. Any suitably experienced candidate should understand the gist of at least - the marketing terminology is fairly standard. 

Yep 😁

So ho

So how do you define those categories? In particular, what are "mountaineers" in a UK context?  Where do you draw the line between climbing/mountaineering and hillwalking, to decide who should be allowed to join?  

Even if you limit it to those categories, a large number of participants, possibly the majority, are not members of the BMC.  Why would you not want it to encourage them to join?

And I would understand what was meant if a teaching job was advertised as a "learning facilitator". Is this all that different?

You posted the G W-Y quote and suggested that it represented your position on what the BMC should  be doing. I offered an opinion that what worked for the Victorian's doesn't necessarily work so well today. If that's 'childish' then I'm happy to appear younger than I look (and feel these days).

I'm well aware of that, but organisation evolve in order to stay relevant to their members and to society as a whole. Or they wither away. I'd rather the BMC tried it's best to be valuable and relevant and yes, make mistakes than stick to some outdated 'core' values all the way to the bitter end.

Leaving aside it was 1944, not Victorian, making out I want exclude people and restrict acces to land is ridiculous.

OK, you win! I have no idea what that meant either!

Take a closer look at the original 25 “climbing clubs” and there objectives.

Oops, yes, of course you're right. I guess I was thinking 'attitudes' rather than 'chronology'.

But no, I didn't suggest that you "want to exclude people and restrict acces to land" - the point I was trying (and failing) to make was that for an organisation limited to 'access rights' to stay relevant is for it to push for exclusive access. Otherwise every Tom Dick and Harry will get in there and do thing the organisation doesn't approve of. The 'riparian rights' of fishing clubs comes to mind. I don't think anyone (including you) thinks that's a good idea.

Well I'm not aware of that approach ever being a suggestion at any time by the BMC but would oppose it very happily if made.

Well Ive looked at two I have access to. Doubtless you will enlighten me of the contents of the rest as clearly you have a close interest in the objectives of climbing clubs in the 1940s.

I only looked at the Rucksack Club and the Wayfarers’ Club. The former include hill walking along with climbing and mountaineering, the latter includes simply walking (although definitely not women). I’ve not looked at say, the Yorkshire Ramblers’ Club.

The BMC is shrinking.... finally good news!

You can increase BMC membership without encouraging participation; you just need to figure out how to get existing climbers who aren't BMC members to become BMC members...

Growth Marketing Coordinator?... Bob Pettigrew ought to be all over this shit. 

A rare opportunity to be both inside and outside the tent incontinently. 

Which is one of the major targets of the BMC's current "marketing", another being to direct new participants towards clubs, where it can be hoped they will absorb some of our traditions and ethics and avoid the "superficial engagement" MG seems so concerned about (with good reason).

Just figure out how to recruit existing mountaineers, rock climbers, hill walkers and indoor climbers. BMC membership pre-covid was around 80k. Ignoring indoor numbers, that's a very small fraction of keen experienced participation rates outdoors for the sort of people who say they have similar views on access and conservation, on climbing and mountain safety, risk, technical equipment issues and education, on heritage (from key first ascents to the Kinder trespass), that the BMC stands for. The BMC stepped in and purchased crags where access was potentially at risk, they own ten now. They work in partnership with Mountain Training, with land charities like the NT and RSPB, with similar charities on shared aims (like MRTs, The Ramblers and Surfers against Sewage), with other landowners and  National Park authorities. They lobby and advise on new law in England and Wales. They form an umbrella for clubs... something that became pretty important for many during covid. In cost terms members get 3rd party insurance and discounts that are pretty much worth the membership on their own.  It's just like the Monty Python Romans joke. Everyone on mountains, hills and crags benefits from BMC work, members or not.

I've worked closely with the organisation since the early 90s when they helped prevent  student union safety policy nearly wrecking the successful mountaineering club where I had responsibility for such matters. The more I know the more impressed I am.

My biggest sadness in recent years is that a small number of members tried to forment difference using undemocratic means, rather than publicly debate.  UKC and other public social media have really helped counter that, generating proper debate on any concerns raised. Sport England are a common theme. I, like many, don't agree with everything coming out of the funding body but they have paid for numerous staff posts that provided really useful work; including the volunteer officer who recruited me and my partner, quite a few on local area committees, central committees, those running festivals etc.

The BMC's influence is related to the number of members it has relative to the number of participants. The number of participants is rising while the number of members has fallen (decrease in income and membership being a "nice to have").

We don't really know if it has fallen in the medium term as the current drop is directly due to covid. We have lost some from reduced Mountain Training enrollment, who have to be BMC members (or equivalent) and most of the normal level who join yearly to access BMC travel insurance (plus the income lost on fewer policies sold) and some of those who join to enter Youth Comps. There is also some change in student clubs as some Universities think a seperate insurance and advice position is more beneficial (a very dubious position in my view .... I'd be arguing for BMC or Mountaineering Scotland membership if I was still a student club officer). Most clubs still realise the insurance issue is not trivial for members and especially for club officers. I'm optimistic we will be back to 80k pretty quickly, the more difficult factor is matching participation growth, where better digital marketing may help. Given the legislation lined up in England in particular there has certainly never been a more important time for BMC lobbying.

I'm glad but not surprised membership numbers held up so well. Covid threatened BMC business and member activities in so many ways yet membership only dropped about 10% from the recent pre-covid peak, as indicated in the Annual Report presented at the 2021 AGM

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=2037

I'm guessing some of that drop in numbers will be members such as myself who chose not to renew their membership when it lapsed in lockdown. 

I wasn't doing any climbing or walking, buying any kit, taking any trips or requiring any insurance so, decided not to renew for the time being.

Of course now that things are slowly returning to normal I'll renew my membership, although I've often been critical of the BMC here, like I've always maintained it's a vital organisation that I'm proud to be a member of.  

If there's many other people in the same position as me I'm sure the numbers will return in no time.

I've no issue with the wording of this job advertisement.  If you want to attract top talent in a given field you have to speak their language.  If a top marketeer saw the same job advertised, but using less specialised language they may feel that the BMC don't really know their onions in this area and choose not to apply.

I've no issue with the wording of this job advertisement.  If you want to attract top talent in a given field you have to speak their language.  If a top marketeer saw the same job advertised, but using less specialised language they may feel that the BMC don't really know their onions 

If they get someone with everything they need on the job spec they'll both know their onions and the BMC will get their pound of flesh.

All stuff that needs doing, I'd think about it if I could sit at home

How is the large sport climbing budget for training, travel and bursaries funded from BMC income, if not indirectly by Sport England. Sport England have even published the amount they are going to fund climbing by. Don’t get me wrong I realise that you have BMC running through you like a stick of rock and my perception is that you and the legion of unpaid volunteers are the actual real workers for such issues as access, guide books and conservation, not the increasing legions of Didsbury based salaried and pensioned executives. You even spelt out these as a priority and I totally agree, as they have always been and should continue to be the priority for the BMC, not the  current direction being pursued. By the way there was never any BMC involvement in competitions from Denis right through until recently. Back in the day the BMC had no involvement with Simon Nadin when he was world champion. I knew Simon well and used to climb with him and Richard and it was me who christened them the Buxton stick men, as we all lived in Buxton at the time. I remember well the Sheffield mafia getting their noses out of joint by the progress of these two skinny youths.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't (necessarily) make it bullshit.  Google "sales versus marketing" if you're really interested (although I sense you aren't).

From the annual report infographic linked above there were £542k of gross costs for GB Climbing in total but net cost after grants to the BMC were £268k. 
 

I might do so. But I am sure you would agree that, since a market is somewhere where people buy and sell things, it is very understandable that someone might assume marketing was to do with that sort of thing - I have certainly always genuinely assumed so and, until yesterday, never had reason to doubt it.

Why do you want to match 'participation growth'? Is this just because you feel you/the BMC should do in a purely capitalist way? Or simply because the BMC want more money and power to do more stuff? When did the BMC turn into a corporate business as opposed to a members support organisation (genuine question)? Thanks

If the proportion of members to participants is declining then it is less representative of the sport.

Also reduced membership income reduces its power to do good things for the sport. 
 
It is not a corporate business but it is endeavouring to become more professional and better run.

Some concrete statements at last. Sadly the key facts are not really on your side.

Govenment funding for top climbing athletes didn't exist back then. Now it comes through UK Sport. Sport England funds grass roots participation and talent development. I think most of the money from both sources is from the National Lottery. Some BMC money is used but at much lower proportional levels than for other aspects of its work, due to the higher level of government support in that area.

The only paid and pensioned BMC Director is the CEO. All the rest are unpaid volunteers.

Dennis was still General Secretary at the BMC in 1988 when it started formal involvement with competitions and formed it's first competition committee. Chris Bonnington was President then. I wasn't involved enough to know internal stuff with competitions until over a decade later but someone like Ian Dunn will know the details. The timelines and facts about what happened (as opposed to what Dennis may have wanted) are laid out in The First Fifty Years of the British Mountaineering Council. This includes on p.74-75, in a chapter written by Dennis, where it says "...the very first UIAA World Cup competition was organised by DMM/BMC in Leeds..."

My views on access conservation etc are as far as I can tell the standard views of all my fellow councillors. This is why I feel sad that vague or misleading statements about partly unspecified directions end up dividing the organisational politics and detract from efforts put into much more constructive work.

What Shark said.

Do you mean Sport England or UK Sport?

That was all discussed in the ORG review, that led to changes in the articles after AGM votes., including why a not-for-profit membership company structure was preferred. Some of us involved in BMC politics would prefer medium term for the BMC to increase the work done under charity structures if possible (currently that's only ACT, MHT and LaPT in official 'internal' charities, but we link initiatives with other charity partners).

As Simon (Shark) rightly says if we stop being representative we lose influence.

It is also possible (with considerable will and effort) to convert the BMC entirely to a charity with a potential to add up to £400k pa from gift aid reclaim 

As I understood it the actual cost benefit, just looking at tax, would be a lot less, as costs elsewhere increase. I guess my view is more that the BMC really is mostly doing charity style work and might get more additional donations, members and positive publicity for its work if that was a bit clearer. We mostly look like a duck and quack like a duck but prefer for ORG reasons  to identify as something else. People can and do donate to the internal charities and get them gift aid gains.

Gift aid reclaim on membership subscription through charitable conversion should have been done years ago and represents a major opportunity at a time when membership is down (from 85,000 to c.73,000) and costs are on the up due to the end of furlough, the resumption of events and increased payroll costs from new appointments

I don't understand most of your answer, or acronyms, but thanks all the same. 

Indeed.  Stop press: old man seen shouting at clouds.

sales funnel - as people go from step to step in becoming aware of BMC, paying more interest, seeing the website, engaging with content, signing up, the number of people per month in each of these categories becomes less and less. It's a 'funnel' shape. 

With online engagement and to some extent offline engagement, you can deploy multiple separate messages with tracking that lets you see which approach worked better. For instance, language changes, graphics differences etc. In the processing your experiments inform future activities. A person taken from seeing the website to a paid member is 'converted'. 

The language is clear if you know the sector.

Finding out the user journey is working out what steps you have in your funnel as mentioned above. Optimising that user journey is a process of not just stopping the loss of interest at each step in the funnel but also potentially jumping people to conversion quicker. 

A reasonably well educated person wouldn't have a clue how to do online A/B testing of multiple marketing messages across social media platforms. Hence they want someone with 'domain knowledge' and an understanding of the relevant terminology usage within the industry.

Tim

Has it ever been a "members support organisation"?  In all the years I've been a member it has always aimed to represent the interests of all climbers, hillwalkers and mountaineers, and it is recognised as the representative body.  However if it is to do that effectively then the more participants who are members the more authority it will have.  Otherwise, why should a landowner bother to negotiate access with the BMC, if it doesn't speak for most climbers?  And if not the BMC, then who?

Of course, more members means more funds from membership fees, which means the organisation can remain sustainable and can do more to represent climbers' interests. How is that a bad thing?

The BMC is a corporate body, but that is not the same as being a business, and most of its activities are entirely non-commercial.  However it is responsible for both its members' and public funds, and it needs to be run in a professional way and according to current best practice (not least in order to continue to receive public funds).  I find it extraordinary that so many seem to find that objectionable.

Those others who object to "corporate bullshit" but who want the BMC to seek charitable status should take a look at the vast amount of rules and guidance that charities are expected to follow, and should be careful what they wish for.

Interesting debates.  I agree the Job Name looks a bit 'management bingo' like but it is what the people with the skills we need look for in their job searches so we would be silly to use a different name.

2 Points I would make on 'growth':

1. We need to 'recruit' and engage indoor climbers where BMC membership is very low.  As I said in Summit "These young people will be the Shauna's of the future, but some may go on to become the future Hazel Finley's, Tom Livingston's and Leo Holding's.  More importantly many will be the climbers at your local crag and unless the BMC, and our members, can help them understand the ethos and traditions of rock climbing in the UK then the future will look very different and, in my view, diminished."
2. Historically our membership has grown, but by far less than the numbers of active participants in our core activities have grown.  The BMCs voice with government, land owners and others depends, to a great extent, on our ability to show we represent a significant proportion of participants; as well as our history and the lack of an alternative representative body.  The BMC needs to ensure that we are able to show others that our members represent a significant and important ‘constituency’.  Ultimately that requires us to grow our membership at least in line with growing participation.

Whilst there could be a long debate on growing participation, I would suggest that until we have fished out the pool of active climbers, hill walkers and Mountaineers who are not BMC members in England and Wales, there is little point spending time or money in getting more participants which only make us less representative of the constituency of participants!!! (and participation is growing very nicely without us doing anything anyway )

I think you need to get out more

Which participation figures are you using? If it is for those participating in outdoor climbing then that is concerning. If it includes indoor climbers (who don’t go outside or compete) and/or hill walkers then it’s hardly surprising as the BMC has less to offer them - currently at least.

You,ll twist stuff constantly to suite your agenda. I know the board are unpaid, but Nick Colton, Ian Dunn, Dave Turnbull in his sideways move, all the new posts etc and all the admin staff are all unpaid volunteers? There,s nearly enough staff to run a FTSE 100 company in Didsbury. And what is the conduit that the National Lottery divert it,s sponsorship through? You,re correct in that there was some partial  BMC involvement in Leeds, but that was a one off event in the UIAA calendar and certainly the UK participants were self taught, uncoached and company sponsored individuals with no involvement whatsoever with the BMC and that formula produced a world champion at no cost to the BMC. Apart from Shauna Coxeys brilliant efforts after 30 years of BMC involvement we’re still waiting for results. The BMC should just give comp. climbing over to a climbing wall association body, after all they have all the venues, route setters and trainers. What does the BMC have; a large overhead! The British guides split from the BMC and so should comp. climbing and get rid of the middle man, with possibly financial savings. I will not further comment on this post, but I respect your views, as people like you literally carry the BMC and without you it would be an expensive failure. We will beg to differ.

I hadn't realised when I did the OP that this job title was "normal" marketing lingo that someone in that field would understand - however I'll bet that this same job title in different organisations & companies will mean significantly different roles - but that's the same with most job titles.

Also, I did point out in the OP that I wasn't against the job itself, just the job title. I'd like my BMC to be staffed as much as possible by people who as well as having the required skills for the job, were also enthusiastic (or ex) climbers/mountaineers/walkers.

That was listed as desirable but not essential in the job description.

Definitely, I did my back in at the beginning of July and climbing will (unfortunately) be the last of my physical activities to be restored (less controllable than things like weights or running, higher risk of reoccurrence). Hopefully start back gently some time in September.

Its wrong to say "much lower", from the linked report:

BMC costs for GB Climbing *after* grant = £268K

BMC costs for access and conservation work including managed sites and rocks = £283k

So GB Climbing gets about 5.5% less than Access, conservation and management of BMC owned climbing sites. There's obviously a share of the £691k office and admin costs to be apportioned to both of those (presumably higher for GB Climbing as their overall spend is nearly twice that of Access etc.?).

The Report specifically says GB Climbing rather than competitions or indoor climbing in general. It's not clear if things like the Youth Climbing series is paid for from this or the Youth and Equity.

I'm reluctant to go over old ground but the last time this was discussed no one was able to say what would happen if the Sport England funding was reduced? It seems to be predicated to a large extent on Olympics success and even getting to the Olympics as a climber seems to be harder than getting a medal in other sports.

Many thanks Tim for explaining the jargon. I hope my former professional field (I advised schools on educational visits and adventure activities) has rather less opaque jargon than this, but that might just be my blinkered view.

The BMC members are its stakeholders. It would be good to see the rationale for appointments of this nature explained to members - eg in the regular members' newsletters. I might have missed this, but I don't think so. 

I agree that converting non-member climbers and hill-walkers into paid-up BMC members is a worthy objective. 

Martin

My point about decrease in income and membership being a nice to have was alluding to COVID, I forgot to mention the actual word! 

Thanks.

Your answer actually makes sense unlike Offwidth's which frankly made no sense to me, all jargon etc.

I take on board your points, it's just I don't buy the corporate BS now rife in the BMC. It's grown too big, away from it's roots. A victim of capitalism ideology unfortunately. It's a shame that no organisation can reflect upon itself and actually downscale and then say 'yep, lets do these things well' without the need for these BS roles which started this thread etc. 

Its ironic the name of marketing role is one that actually puts of.a.segement of the desired market.

Although it puts off people who in their own words no longer go go climbing, does it really put of the target audience who actually climb.

Should the BMC be for people who go climbing or for people who went climbing when they were younger and think that grants them some kind of countercultural anarchist status for life. (Despite the fact that now they just manage safe things like running)

The sheer balls of complaining that the BMC includes mountain walking coming from someone who hasn't managed to go climbing since July astounds me.

I think I'm the only one who's mentioned not climbing since July, so I presume that this paragraph is aimed at me.

At no point have I complained about mountain walking or the membership of the BMC or expressed an opinion on which segments of the community the BMC should be serving or whether it should be expansionist or not.

Apart from which your paragraph doesn't even make much sense. 2 months away from an activity is hardly a long time whilst recovering from an injury or ailment. Are you disenfranchising for example Shauna Coxey because she took some time out after an operation.

You need to go to Specsavers, read the posts properly and think before writing rubbish.

Having been climbing with an external fixator on my leg after injury it sounds very much to me like you are no longer a climber.

I doubt very much Shauna sat on her arse for two months like you have.

If your previous post was a wind up then I salute you - very effective.

If not then I suggest you read my previous posts properly to see the mistakes you have made. 2 months not climbing does not stop one being a climber, apart from which your log book would seem to indicate that you have never been a climber.

And once again it appears that you are illiterate (at least the reading half). I didn't say I was sat on my arse, I said climbing would be the last activity to go back to simply because it was the most risky in terms of ensuring non reoccurrence.

The fact that you think you are some kind of superhero because you managed to climb with an external fixator is totally irrelevant - different injury, different possibilities.

The only complete arse around here appears to be you.

I googled "marketing definition" and the first thing that came up was "the action or business of promoting and selling products or services, including market research and advertising".  So very much about selling stuff. A little more investigation suggests to me that it is about delivering people efficiently and effectively to the point of sale (through the "tunnel"?) where the "conversion" (presumably a rugby metaphor for the actual sale) is handled by the sales people. Is that about right?

Obviously the "conversion" in the case of the BMC is when people join the BMC, so, in this case, not strictly a sale unless is seen as a sale of services. Having said that, the BMC do sell insurance (and maybe some other things for all I know).

Yes. I've no doubt the job title and description is technically appropriate for a valuable role within the BMC, but, unfortunately, the word "marketing" holds negative connotations for many - it, rightly or wrongly, smacks of a commercialism and "hard sell" which will be anathema to the spirit in which many see climbing and mountaineering. It is a pity that the job title couldn't have been "outreach coordinator" or something more user-friendly sounding.

The Yorkshire Ramblers objectives cover mountaineering, caving and exploration

"if you are a caver, climber, mountaineer, scrambler, hill-walker or ski-tourer, the Club has plenty to offer you" and women are welcome; though we were later to the party than many clubs.

It's the Sport England participation figures (https://www.sportengland.org/know-your-audience/data/active-lives/active-li... Tables 5-8). 

Obviously with 177k respondents which is then statistically projected to get the participation rates it's not 'gospel' but it's as good a benchmark as any other. 

As it's self declared, in hill walking especially I suspect that not all the 2.9M people who do 'Hill and Mountain Walking' would see the BMC as their home compared to other organisations (Ramblers, LDWC etc) but I would guess, even being conservative, that at least 10% could/should which is still a big number.

The of the 234,000 who do 'Climbing and Bouldering' some will just climb indoors, and you are right we need to improve our offer to them as to why the BMC is a good place to be, but I would suggest many do, or will, go outdoors and as I said earlier it benefits them and existing members that when they go outdoors they do so cognisant of what UK outdoor climbing is; both to protect the crags and our access, and to ensure they can at least have a better understanding of the very different risks, and joys, outdoor climbing brings.

There are plenty of smaller organisations with less staff who have similar roles. FTSE 100 companys will employ far more staff in this type of role.

I run a small engineering company and even I have a person doing a similar role. 20/30 years ago you would have employed lots of people typing letters , cross checking paper records, licking postage stamps and envelopes (if you did not have a franking machine).

You are just way out of date.

Its an incredibly efficient and cost effective way of an organisation reaching out and communicating with exisiting and potential members.

What do you want the BMC to use--- a typewriter and a few pigeons?Good grief.

Is there some confusion here between Sport England (participation) and UK Sport (performance)?

I don't know enough about the actual monies involved but they are very different organisations supplying funding for different objectives. Sport England funding would go to the BMC (probably youth and equity etc) and UK Sport to GB Climbing and the athletes direct (Shauna had direct UK Sport funding I believe). I don't know where junior comps etc fit in but UK Sport committed to £450K over 2021 for Progression Funding which will include "Delivering a world-class domestic competition structure" so I guess there is some cash for that!

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/uk-sport-funds-gb-climbing-to-uncover-the-champion...

FYI, we have one climbing wall association body, the ABC which, in spite of its stated aim, is still (IMHO of course) a trade body for climbing walls that does over and above. It would not be the right place for GB climbing to reside.

The BMC is currently the national representative body for climbing as well as being the national governing body for competition climbing. I see no reason to change this. Setting up GB Climbing as a semi-separate entity within the BMC seems a decent plan to me.

Re your point about Shauna, you may have missed the other GB athletes getting into semis and finals in the bouldering and lead world cups as well as this:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/ukc/hamish_mcarthur_wins_gold_in_ifsc_you...

Probably but its completely irrelevant to the point being made. Offwidth said that "Some BMC money is used but at much lower proportional levels than for other aspects of its work, due to the higher level of government support in that area." What matters is how much BMC money is used and, contrary to what Offwidth says, its the same amount as is spent on Access, conservation and properties (Didsbury office aside) management combined. 

Will this £450k replace the BMC's contribution to GB Climbing? 

Fair point. I think there was some disparity with spending going out before funding came in but I'm not in the know to be able to say.

Can't say for sure, but I believe GB climbing is working to a more "self funded*" model, reducing/eliminating the money required form the BMC pot.

*sponsorship, UK sport funding etc.

The report is pretty clear, are you saying it’s wrong?

Are there published targets for this? Without that this looks like spin to try and diminish the fact that the 50 or so climbers in Climbing GB get as much cash from the BMC as the entire access and conservation effort. If that’s what the membership want there’s no problem but Offwidth seems keen to  obsfucate that.

It's the British MOUNTAINEERING Council, it is NOT the British CLIMBING Council.

That's the main reason the previous attempt at renaming was stopped.

The simple answer is no.  UK Sport bids are based on a model where costs are shared between the biding organisation and UK Sport.  I don't know how formulaic this is but in simple terms how much they give is driven by how much we invest in the bid.

Your figures are from 2020 report.  In 2019 it was 21% A&C, 21% comps, in 2018 it was 24% A&C , 11% comps, in 2017 25% A&C, 14% Comps. So it varies, though A&C and heritage are pretty consistently around 30% of expenditure.

This isn't a competition (no pun intended) the BMC needs to spend money where it has most need or impact so that over time we support across our wide range of members.

Tyler see this page where Rab (Chair of CCPG) publishes regular updates.  22 Dec 2020 might answer some more questions. 

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/update-ccpg-work

|Also I can't remember who asked but yes CCPG funding covers youth competitions etc.

No! I meant there was spending in 2020 that they won't see the funding for until 2021. The report is frustrating though as when you compare it to 2019, all the categories are different so it is hard to see whether the spending has changed and if so, by how much. I was surprised at the amount of GB spending though and would like to know the extent of what GB climbing covers.

No idea. Hopefully the remit, scope and funding of GB Climbing will be laid out in black and white so people can form an informed opinion as the info currently is pretty non existent. It would make a difference if it's just the team or the entire youth structure etc. This was why I was hoping that GB Climbing would be separated more from the BMC and left to stand on (mostly) it's on two feet.

Funding on access has gone up from £257k (2019) to £283k (2020) if that helps at all.......

(FYI there are about 80 names on the GB Climbing site....)

Or just read what Andy Syme posted as he IS in the know.....

I was clumsy pointing out that it was not the British Retirees Council and that we should give little notice to reactionary older gentlemen, who no longer climb and are using an archaic version of English.

It seems madness to go out and fail to recruit good candidates due to ignoring the modern job title in favour of anachronisms from the last century.

Replying again makes it seem like I am anti-BMC or anti-competition climbing, which I am not, but you can't publish figures of 21%, 24%, 25% and then say "consistently around 30% of expenditure." Especially when the trend is consistently moving away from 30% (I looked back to 2013 and it's never been 30% in that time, 27% was the highest). 

I did and read about half the reports linked to, nothing specific about funding but I did learn that GB Climbing will also include skimo. Good, trust fund seasonaires are an under represented demographic in climbing and we should support them!

I said A&C and Heritage are consistently around 30% but then only showed A&C %ages (heritage is generally another 5% if you look).  I'm not trying to hide anything here but maybe I'm being a little to shortwinded in my replies (I'm too often told my replies are too long and hence not read ).  Sorry for any confusion.

If Access and Conservation need more money then they ask, and if at all possible it is provided.  For example in my area Yorkshire in the last year or so stone was bought by BMC for a path at Almscliffe, signs were provided at Kilnsey to help reduce poor parking which was annoying the land owner and a couple of years ago the BMC bought Crookrise. etc etc)  I have not heard anyone in A&C team saying we need more money for X and it being refused, though I'm probably lining myself up for a number of examples now.  I guess my bottom line is the %age shouldn't matter as from a logical point of view if we only needed to spend 10% on A&C and we achieved all our aims and needs why would we spend more?

I am not arguing for any one area here.  At the moment comps needs money, both to secure the funding from UK Sport and because it is an area that many members, and potential members support, but which was not in a good place. In the future other areas needs will become greater and spending will shift. 

Ultimately most of the BMCs income is Member's money (i.e. subs) and we both want and need to spend it on what members want; albeit in any given year you may disagree with the split over the long run it should even out so everyone benefits.  If we are missing things you think we should be spending money on then tell your area rep or email me (president@thebmc.co.uk) or raise it at an AGM.  I don't promise we'll agree with you but it will definitely be looked at and if it is appropriate and possible it will be funded. 

And Ice Climbing and para climbing.

I'd not noticed you'd mentioned heritage because I'd also not noticed that Heritage has been dropped as a separate line item in the 2020 report compared to previous reports. Does that mean that Access and Conservation spend now has Heritage rolled into it? If that's the case then BMC actually spends less on A&C than on GB Climbing

Heritage is there at 5% bottom of left column dark blue.  And no I don't know the sub split or how it was counted in previous reports.  

As I said why worry about the percentage spends perse?  A&C are fully funded as is Heritage.  Competitions has more money this year than it's had in the past.  In the future we will continue to target money to greatest need and impact, based on members input.

I'm really not trying to twist stuff. The antipathy towards comps that Dennis has comes across clearly in the chapters he writes in that book. Yet Leeds really wasn't a one-off, or Jerry would be world champ that year and not  Simon , it was the start of world competitions and with BMC input linked to BMC committees.

It must be forgivable for me to misunderstood, that when you were being rude with comments about legions of Didsbury based executives, you actually meant all the BMC employees. There are in the mid-30s of employees in total, plus a few part-time contracted staff on specific jobs.

That the BMC is still the governing body for competition climbing in the UK has been a subject of passionate debate from when I first attended area meetings in the 90s to the present. One of those debates was when I met you in person, as the man who wrote a book I really enjoyed. Every time it was debated and voted on these most active BMC members agreed it sbould continue.

Thanks for recognising volunteer input as you're right that they do most of the work done in the BMC and in it's clubs. There have been tens of thousands of them doing useful work off-balance sheet over the decades.

In money terms quite a lot of access and conservation income and expenditure is on the balance sheets of the Access and Conservation Trust and the BMC trust dealing with land and property management. Andy mentioned the Crookrise purchase but a bigger example is the Mend our Mountains campaigns, which raised about a million and spent this in two annual path repair plans.  Then there is all the uncounted money... real costs (not claimed on expenses) over and above the time incurred by volunteers when doing work for the organisation: access and conservation dominates the organisational volunteer efforts. I remember ticking off the CEO for saying as part of an annual report mid last decade that the BMC had a few hundred volunteers: a larger number than that had volunteered in the Peak Area just on access conservation and guidebook work that year.

1/10, the 1 is for cheek.

Touche 😁 (afraid I can't find an e with an acute accent on my phone)

Well, you can just stick unicode in, although the half-assed way UKC interprets post text means you have to create the post, include your text with unicode, save it, edit it, then resave it (don't need to actually make a change).

é

This is (one version) of acute-e:

é

If you want to figure out the net effect of climbing comps on BMC finances as well as government grants you also need to consider:

a. the entry fees for the comps

b. the number of family memberships to BMC which are sold because a kid does climbing competitions and the parents want the insurance for belaying duty.

c. a kid brought in to BMC through climbing comps could be a fees paying member for a very long time.  

Search for touche and copy touché.

Plus with the formation of the Climbing and Competition Performance Group, led by Rab, the funding is internally ring-fenced.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/update-ccpg-work

The access and conservation trust is a separate charity that people donate to directly for access and conservation. Claiming that as BMC expenditure is like the govt claiming the money raised by Captain Tom Moore as its own health spending. If the BMC contribute either financially or in kind that will be accounted for in BMC accounts. I don't see a separate line item for to in the annual report so any such costs and contributions are included in the £283k A&C.

Wrong again, this is included  "£283k for access and conservation work *including managed sites and rocks*"

Again, Mend our Mountains is part of a separate charity, the BMC would be breaking the law if it started using that money for any other purpose. 

Exactly money and time is given for A&C because that's what matters to people. This enables the BMC to reduce (in relative terms) the amount of its income the BMC spends on A&C funding and means, in effect, these volunteers are subsidising GB Climbing. I know Andy said A&C has all the money it needs. This might be true but he then goes on to cite Yorkshire area and the Kilnsey parking issue where the BMC did not cover itself in glory and was followed by the Whitehouses fiasco.

I'm not against competitions or supporting the GB Team but every time a question is asked there seems to be misdirection of the type you made (not the first time) or like Andy, who for some unfathomable reason, decided to roll up an entirely different type of spending in with A&C to gerrymander the figures (which, even with the slight of hand, he over stated).

And still none of you have attempted to answer my question about what happens if port England cut funding for GB Climbing? What happens when they realise all the current team are focused on Lead and Boulder when there are medals to be won in speed. Will they want to expand the squad with speed climbers or cut it? Will they want funding for more speed walls and a development squad?

The BMC charities post accounts on the charity commission website: any expenditure is on behalf of those charities' aims but they are nearly always in addition to the BMC company expenditure, not part of it (unless both sets show some exceptional transfer from the BMC company to the charity). The BMC has some land and property managed outside the charity which will be on the company accounts.

Volunteers give time and incur costs on A&C because something needs doing and they want to help and choose to do that. No one is subsidising anything elsewhere. GB climbing has its own army of volunteers doing the same.

We will have to agree to disagree on any responsibility of the BMC on those two Yorkshire area access problems. It's not the fault of the BMC company that some climbers risk access by behaving badly, nor when BMC volunteer interventions, to try and calm matters, don't always run as smoothly as we like, especially when facing angry landowners. Also how many access and conservation successes are there on the 'impact balance sheet'?

Any member is free to ask questions at the AGM or a local area meetings or open forums. This is a climbing forum, not an official BMC communication route. People do their best to help but maybe no-one is answering your questions here as we can't sensibly respond to such hypertheticals. The BMC makes bids to Sport England and if successful manages the money provided under a contract for a fixed time. Sport England is mainly about participation and speed climbing needs to take off in popularity before any significant participation funding  becomes available...pretty unlikely in my view in the next few years, if ever. If future Sport England bids fail, such that overall funding from them reduces, the BMC company will have to look at what's best to do to balance the books. However it would be really odd to not bid for money now (to do good work soon) in case the funding achieved decreases later.

Some links in case people don't know what you are referring to about Whitehouses (Kilnsey parking problems leading to access issues are much better known and easily found by searching UKC and UKB):

https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/skills/series/respecttherock/the_sad_st...

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/bouldering/whitehouses_access-675309

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rock_talk/whitehouses_chipping-678712

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,28660.50.html

Kilnsey landowner and locals are much happier about parking than before.  Not sure what you think is bad about that.

Whitehouses is hardly on the BMC.  Some idiots repeatedly upset the farmer, who owns the rocks, until he decided to remove his problem by smashing every chalked hold with a hammer.

Seriously!  I have consistently tried to answer your questions courteously and honestly.  I was clear about the figures I was using and where from, it was no sleight of hand.  If you think I should have rounded down or taken the mean to the 3rd decimal place I provided you the figures to do it.  If you think adding heritage (another key issue for members) was unhelpful then I'm sorry.   

I never saw this question before but in answer:

GB Climbing must work within it's means if UK Sport (not Sport England) cut the funding the BMC would need to decide if they should made up the gap (unlikely given the amounts) or require GB Climbing to cut their cloth appropriately to the funding we could afford and which members would agree to.  GB Climbing are also looking at sponsorship to ensure they spread the funding risk.

UK Sport don't, as far as I know, divide funding by discipline but do have rules about spending it on medal prospects.  So if speed needs money it comes from the same pot.   Clearly one way to keep UK Sport money is to win medals, so we need to ensure we support our elite athletes achieve this, but we also build our pathways in all disciplines so the young athletes can develop into the next elite team.   Hence why youth competitions are part of CCPGs remit.

Access and Conservation is not a separate entity in the way the government is separate to Captain Tom. Access and Conversation is a Charity that is 100% part of the BMC in much the same way that a plc subsidiary is owned by the plc holding company. As part of the BMC it makes complete sense for the BMC to report income raised within Access and Conservation as part of its activity.