UKC

I know I haven't been much involved with the BMC recently, or on here quite as much as I once was, and I was away for quite a chunk of last year, but I seem to have missed something.  I can't find any reference to guidebooks on the BMC website (not even sales), nor any reference to volunteer committees.  I do note that Grimer isn't listed as part of the employee team, so that tells me something.

Obviously I'm missing something, though, because I can't find any reference to a massive online discussion about it by searching on here either.

Don't know about ongoing production but they're definitely still selling guides on their website: 

https://shop.thebmc.co.uk/product-category/books/guidebooks/

Some third party, some their own.

Ah, thanks.  Missed the way the menus are now split.

I welcome something more definitive from others in the know, but I think the BMC have moved away from producing guidebooks.

Grimer has said on his podcast that he is no longer working for the BMC. I have a memory of listening to that whilst walking down Moasdale (next to Eskdale) having done a pretty big hike and scramble day on the Scafells - which would date it to October 2023. I had just finished listening to a very good podcast on the Federalist Society and the Supreme Court whilst walking up from the Great Moss to the col into Moasdale, although that wasn't a Grimer podcast!

Well, that's what I'm starting to think, but surely that would have provoked a huge stink, wouldn't it?  Did it somehow get buried in the whole GB climbing finance business?  I would have put guidebooks up there with access as one the BMC's core functions.

I wouldn't. I own some BMC guidebooks and I'm glad they produced them. But to me, for something to be absolutely core to the BMC, it has to be something that either won't be done by somebody else or could only be done much less effectively. There was probably a time when the BMC were needed in the guidebook role but I'm not sure it's the case any more.

If they think they can add something in the guidebook area, I'd be delighted to see them continue. It's just not a core function in my view, because without them I don't feel impoverished on the guidebook front. If they think it's financially risky and hard to justify at present, I'd be okay with that.

I think they assist clubs to publish definitive guidebooks and also the Wired selected guides but no longer produce any definitive guides of their own.  I guess there may be a case for them reprinting some of their existing guides if and when they run out but output of new guides has been very sporadic over the last couple of decades anyway. 

Yes - the BMC came to the end of their definitive series and stopped producing guides of their own a few years ago but have collaborated with the Wired series. 

Personal view is that this is the right move as the BMC should only be involved in areas that generate a decent profit for itself (guidebooks weren’t a great moneyspinner although maybe should have been) or aren’t served by other organisations - in this case Clubs such as the CC and FRCC (both BMC affiliated) and independents notably Rockfax. 
 

As someone who used to be on the guidebook committee I’m a bit conflicted by all this.  I do think it should be part of the BMC’s remit to provide definitive and complete guidebook information for areas not covered by clubs with a particular regional interest (ie the CC and FRCC), in particular, the Peak.

Whilst I absolutely support the BMC being financially sound and responsible, I also think providing important information to members is a core function even if it isn’t a massive profit centre.  In my experience, guidebooks always covered their costs, even if the payback period was sometimes quite long - but an organisation like the BMC could afford to take the long view.  Given that the vast majority of the work was done by volunteers, not making a loss wasn’t too difficult.  I guess having it run by a salaried employee may have changed the numbers but, nevertheless, I still think that it was an important function and abandoning it means there’s one fewer reason to be a member, either as an individual or as a club.

Volunteer committees are very much a thing still, I chair technical committee, there was lots of good stuff discussed at the specialist committee review in December (I would quite like for a summary of that to be made available to members so they can see how much great stuff the BMC actually does).

You, and any other member, are welcome to pop me a message asking for info about what we do on Tech Committee, there is meant to be something going up on the website soon and I presume other specialist committees have been asked to do the same.

I don’t agree (does access work make a profit?). The BMC’s job is to represent climbers.  Obviously it has limited resources and has to spend our subs wisely.  But I don’t see guidebook production as inconsistent with that.  In any case others manage to produce guidebooks at a profit (although I suspect many definitive guides are only “profitable” due to the large amounts of time given free by volunteers) so the BMC could do that too.  As far as I know, no one now has “responsibility” for definitive guides to the Peak, which is a shame.

You've terribly misquoted there. Your addition of the full stop being particularly misleading. Access work would clearly fit under the other clause of Simon Lee's sentence that you cut out...

Not directly related to the thread, but while thinking about this, I had a quick look for the detailed 2023 income and expenditure statement that the BMC (eventually) published last year. I couldn’t find it.  Does anyone know where it is?

I see what you mean.  I didn’t read it like that but maybe it’s obvious to others.  Apologies to Simon.  (I’m pretty sure I didn’t add a full stop - I was probably imprecise with my extraction of the bit I wanted to quote from the remainder of the post - still my fault obviously.)

All that said, I do think it’s a shame the BMC has withdrawn from guidebooks.  I don’t see why they could not be produced at a profit (with enough support from volunteers).

I think it's a very bad move - and the decision seems to have been made by stealth. I hadn't realised till this thread brought my attention to it.

The background to this  (as I understand it) is that the BMC finished their updated guidebook series to the Peak. The quality of the work means it won't need updating soon, and future updates are likely to just be adding a few access notes, upgrades and quarries.

With this work done, their only full time writer (Niall Grimes) has moved on.

I'm sure reprints and updates could and might be produced - it's just that none are in the pipeline at the moment. 

It would be interesting to hear a definitive statement on that from the BMC. For my part, this whole thing comes as unexpected - and unannounced - news.

Then to be blunt, you haven't been paying attention. Peak Lime South came out in 2018!

But more broadly, the Wired guides which the BMC are involved in are great. Lakes, Yorkshire and Peak all covered among many others.

https://www.wired-guides.com/#guides

I have a copy of that. (In the same way that I have a copy of previous BMC Peak guides going back to 'Stanage Millstone' of 1983.)

What have I missed? Was an announcement made that the 2018 limestone guide would be the last one ever? If so, I missed it - but I am happy to be corrected.

I guess I'm more saying that given they haven't produced a definitive guide since then, an announcement would have been superfluous. Where would they produce them for? The Peak is perfectly covered, with both definitives and select guides. Wales likewise through the CC area guides and the various selects. Ditto the Lakes. Yorkshire has the YMC two volume guides. Lancashire Rock came out in 2016. 

I don't know the background, but given the current environment where there are various other producers of guides I simply cannot get upset that the BMC don't have their finger in that pie anymore. What would be the point? In any case, although I think physical guides will always be around digital is increasingly the growth area in that market, and I definitely don't want the BMC designing an app or similar because they are not equipped to do so.

The BMC has always produced the definitive guides for the Peak. The question here is: will they continue to do so.

Fair enough.

Equally fair enough.

But it matters to me, since the BMC have - up till now - been the custodians of the definitive Peak guides. So I would like to know their official position.

Care to define ‘definitive’? 

From my POV the Peak Limestone North and South guides stretched the definition of ‘definitive’.

Official position is likely to be along the lines of we have no current plans to update the current ‘definitive’ guides to the Peak. If anyone wants to produce a new guide with us come in and have a chat. 

As for custodians it’s hardly a legally trademarked franchise. Nothing in the way for anyone to produce one.
 

In reply not to Dave Garnett in particular:  I'm a little surprised there's so much focus in this thread on the Peak as there is enough trade and business there to attract 'other players'.  If the BMC does have a role in guidebooks surely it's to help and support the minor areas and smaller players where the potential for financial gain is smaller (at best)

Obviously a throwaway remark like that was going to pique my interest...

and it turns out the (the) British Mountaineering Council* owns three UK registered trademarks, and 'BMC' isn't one of them.

Want to guess the three?

GBClimbing (figurative)

Climb Britain

Climb Cymru

* Maybe they have others held in other names.

As Simon says, the last Peak Limestone guides simply weren't definitive even taking into account the online only supplements (to  Peter Dale for example). For sport climbing the Rockfax app isn't bad but also isn't by any means definitive, nor is Gary's website as it doesn't have all the recent lines that he didn't put up. Currently the UKC logbooks database is the closest to definitive, I guess in part because it has professionals running the infrastructure but relies on volunteers (crag moderators and just people adding new routes), in much the way old BMC guidebooks did.