/ NEWS: BMC to Be Re-named 'Climb Britain'

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
UKC/UKH News 25 Jul 2016
Climb Britain logo, 3 kbToday the BMC has announced a change of name to 'Climb Britain', while its Scottish equivalent the MCofS will be re-named 'Mountaineering Scotland'.

Read more
174
Dave Garnett 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

You cannot possibly be serious.
5
top cat 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Naff, totally naff..............
4
Dauphin 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I had to check the date.

D
2
Mr Ed 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Hmmm not particularly impressed. What was wrong with BMC in the first place and why do all the members only hear about it after it's been re-branded?
2
myserable old git 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

It'll be matching blazers to work from now on and any disreputal climbers will be out pretty dam quickly!
4
joe.wahab 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Catchy as anything! Climb Britain! Rolls off the tongue.

Hurm, interesting to see how this one plays out...
3
petellis 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

After checking its not April 1st I'm trying to be open minded. But at best they have re branded to something less formal, at worst its a name that can't be taken seriously.
2
John Gresty 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I knew something was on the cards, but this just sounds ridiculous.

John
2
A Random Climber 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Yay! Let's all just 'Dumb it Down' then eh?
2
Pursued by a bear 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

If only someone hadn't pinched the name 'UK Climbing'...

T.
2
myserable old git 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News: No trad climbing anywhere within a year toproping or bolts everywhere in the interests of "Health and Safety"

7
jonnie3430 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
I wish they'd make insurance cheaper instead.

I can imagine the conversation though:

"We need to attract new members."

"Okay, let's improve what we do so it appeals to current members and it's one of the first things they recommend someone to join."

"Nah, let's rebrand, then the new person won't know it was us that was being moaned about. We can then all get new kit with the logo on it as well."
Post edited at 14:38
1
Crewey-Rob 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I think the logo looks rather fine!
33
slinky wizard 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Shouldn't the membership of had a chance to vote on the change?
2
C Witter 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
This is what happens when you listen to companies called 'b-focused' and 'Thinkfarm' for f-sake...

But, I guess this is reflecting a wider shift: in these neoliberal times, it doesn't fit that the BMC is conceived of as a "council" - i.e. a collective forum through which mountaineers can engage in dialogue with each other and be represented in issues effecting them. I mean, that's almost like having a union! No... now it's a "brand", and its brand image must be rigorously "consumer tested" to improve "reach"... ...how much of our dues, by the by, went on that "9 month long independent study", ending in the lame conclusion "well, you climb, duh!?"

And what's in a name? Personally, I don't see how 'climb' is more representative of, e.g. hikers, alpinists, etc., than 'mountaineering'. But, 'mountaineering' is a noun, whilst 'climb' is a verb - in this context, an imperative: "CLIMB!" And, 'British' is an adjective, whilst 'Britain' is noun: what was mere description, easily abbreviated (BMC), is brought into focus as an assertive presence - for nothing sells like a good bit of jingoism. Especially when the elegant red mountain logo and text is reworked in the colours of Team GB.

Support your troops! Eat British! Climb Britain! Rah!

So, the Council - as forum for debate and representative committee - is now reworked as a nationalistic command, more in line with the general authoritarian tenor of our times.
Post edited at 14:39
1
planetmarshall 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I would have added some punctuation.

"Climb, Britain!"

You can have that for free.
1
haydn 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
"Was there a new name that could clearly convey all our core beliefs? After a nine-month independent study, sports marketing specialists b-focused and design agency Thinkfarm found the answer."

Nine months? Wow.
1
runestone 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

BMC works, a waste of time and money to change it ; when things work, leave them alone. There is lots more they could be doing with the money and resource.


guy127917 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Agree with all the above, I think it sounds naff and I think it was/is a waste of money.
1
jon 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Should have had a referendum. That would have sorted it.
1
JR_NL 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

As a non-UK member I quite like the change. It's simple, it's clear and it shows directly what it stands for.
26
jonnie3430 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

In a surprisingly honest interview, the head of the exBMC explained; "we receive some funding from sport England, but they only give it to us if there is a chance that we'll produce some gold medal athletes for the Olympics. Indoor sport climbing is the only Olympic sport, so we tried, putting up the "check your knot," signs at walls to show then that we did something, but they kept asking about our name, and why we cared about mountaineering so much when they didn't fund us for that. We hired a consultant to blame for the decision, but to protect our funding and our jobs, we changed the name."
2
Dave Garnett 25 Jul 2016
In reply to JR_NL:

> It's simple, it's clear and it shows directly what it stands for.

That's what worries me. It's clearly an sport funding motivated rebranding which narrows the scope of the organisation, deprioritising non-competitive aspects like traditional mountaineering and hillwalking and emphasising competitive sport climbing.

It lacks excitement, it lacks romance, it lacks danger.
2
SChriscoli 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Shouldn't it now be called Climb England and Northern Ireland?

British to me, means all four areas, so a bit odd that the BMC is now called Climb Wales and Scotland is called something else.

I second the chap above who said about Mountaineering being a more appropriate word to use. You've just disenfranchised a whole chunk of user base based on a name change.

Its irrelevant to me, as I do climb.

I also wonder how much this change has to do with the potential reality that climbing will hit the olympics (be great if it does).
3
Tim_C7 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Bit surprised... Don't mind the name that much, but was this discussed at an AGM or put to members in some way? I've never really heard of an organisation like that changing its name without talking to its members.
The Jazz Butcher 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

What I didn't like, apart from the name change which has been discussed and denounced enough already, was the phrase in the email I received, "after more than 70 years trading as the British Mountaineering Council...."

Whilst the use of the word "trading" may technically be correct, I don't know, it is a poor way to describe an organisation that is intended to represent walkers, climbers and other outdoor activities. It is not a business, even though they sell products that may be of use to relevant groups, but a representative and supporting organisation.

What a load of bo%%0*** as far as I am concerned.
1
Steve nevers 25 Jul 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

> In a surprisingly honest interview, the head of the exBMC explained; "we receive some funding from sport England, but they only give it to us if there is a chance that we'll produce some gold medal athletes for the Olympics. Indoor sport climbing is the only Olympic sport, so we tried, putting up the "check your knot," signs at walls to show then that we did something, but they kept asking about our name, and why we cared about mountaineering so much when they didn't fund us for that. We hired a consultant to blame for the decision, but to protect our funding and our jobs, we changed the name."

Explains that the olympic bid is bad news and is forcing the BMC to move away from their core roles to chase funding.

Sod it, disband the BMC then or start a new section called BFIC (British Federation of Indoor Climbers).. As a BMC member i'd rather the focus is on access and outdoor climbing/walking/etc rather than it mutating into a body that primarily is interested in getting medals.
1
edinburgh_man 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

As if the UK couldn't be dumbed down any more....
JR_NL 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> That's what worries me. It's clearly an sport funding motivated rebranding which narrows the scope of the organisation, deprioritising non-competitive aspects like traditional mountaineering and hillwalking and emphasising competitive sport climbing.

I get that it prioritises other non-competitive aspects and I agree with you on that. On the other hand, (non-competitive) sport climbing is on the rise and in my view mountaineering doesn't cover that. I don't feel that my pulling on plastic or doing single pitch sport routes really classify as mountaineering, so either way some parts aren't covered as well.

> It lacks excitement, it lacks romance, it lacks danger.
What is 'it' exactly? If it's traditional mountaineering and hillwalking I can see what your getting at (though not agree), if it's the new name I disagree, as I think that the new name is better in that regard.

Of course my view is influenced being a sport climber and an outsider. For me I don't have any nostalgic feelings for the name BMC so I see it as a good change, but I can see that being different to others
9
deepsoup 25 Jul 2016
In reply to haydn:
> "Was there a new name that could clearly convey all our core beliefs? After a nine-month independent study, sports marketing specialists b-focused and design agency Thinkfarm found the answer."

"b-focused" and "Thinkfarm".

Jesus. Nathan Barley was busy I suppose. :-/
Simon Caldwell 25 Jul 2016
In reply to JR_NL:

> it shows directly what it stands for

Yes, it does. Hill-walkers no longer welcome.
The Jazz Butcher 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Steve nevers:

I agree with what you say.

From a certain perspective, this change and the move for the BMC, sorry CB, to indoor climbing and medal chasing could be a good thing for those of us who climb outside. There will be less encouragement for indoor climbers to move outdoors as that is nothing to do with competitions, meaning fewer climbers at the crags as everyone is inside training.
2
JayPee630 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Really think this is a terrible terrible idea. And so much of what the BMC has said gives the game away. 'Trading'... GRRRRR! I was just about to renew my membership, I won't now.
JR_NL 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

> Yes, it does. Hill-walkers no longer welcome.

Fair point, but if it is the British Mountaineering Council, are us indoor climbers welcome?
11
The Jazz Butcher 25 Jul 2016
In reply to JayPee630:

> I was just about to renew my membership, I won't now.

That is one of the first things I thought as well. But then thought "oh what about my third party liability for Cheddar?"

I would really like the CB to come out and say they are still as committed towards non competition climbing and other activities as they have have always been. Fine, there is a new kid on the block - competitions, which are great. I love watching the World Cup, but the vast majority of BMC / CB members have probably never entered a competition and never will do. Are we still going to be represented and supported as before?
fullastern 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Terrible name. I agree council sounds stuffy, but if it has to go then why not just British Mountaineering, or British Mountaineering Club since "BMC" is so well known?
myrddinmuse 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I for one welcome our new indoor overlords.
2
La benya 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

And.... how much did that logo cost? I'm no designer, but that font is ugly, the colour scheme and mountain motif are obvious and uninteresting.
Above this, I agree with everything people have said, the name is terrible. It alienates walkers and other mountain and outdoor uses that don't identify with 'climb' and clearly signals a move towards medal grabbing, losing all the history of the council. i fear they'll drive away the old guard and their experience and custodianship of heritage and legacy in favour of new blood, to the detriment of the sport and our outdoor spaces. I fear further that they have done this in full knowledge of what it will do.
Glyno 25 Jul 2016
In reply to JayPee630:

> I was just about to renew my membership, I won't now.

same here, I only renew as a course of habit, I now have an excuse to cancel my direct debit
deepstar 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Just like the brilliant idea the suits had when they changed the name Royal Mail to Consignia, how did that go?
1
Lord_ash2000 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Sounds cheap and rubbish like it's a name for some short term fund raising event rather than the national governing body for climbing for decades to come. It gives the organisation no weight, no authority in the name.
andrewmc 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Regardless of how crap/silly/fantastic vision of the future the name/logo/image/branding etc is, it is still just a name change (probably to get some money). I would be incredibly surprised if this meant any actual change in the organization that wouldn't have happened anyway. Plus while the old name had historic value which I wouldn't have thrown away, 'climb' is broader than 'mountaineering' - knocking off single pitch routes at Stanage (probably the most popular activity of BMC members outdoors?) is hardly mountaineering
16
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

What about a membership vote?

I propose 'Climby McClimb Face'.
1
La benya 25 Jul 2016
In reply to andrewmcleod:
> Regardless of how crap/silly/fantastic vision of the future the name/logo/image/branding etc is, it is still just a name change (probably to get some money). I would be incredibly surprised if this meant any actual change in the organization that wouldn't have happened anyway.

they've done away with something historic which incorporates everyone they supposedly lobby for, for money, to buy medals at the expense of walkers etc. id say id be surprised if they didn't change fundamentally from what they were previously to a sport climbing only federation. still, that does mean there would be space for a new organisation, some kind of council that represents all mountain users of Britian...?

Plus while the old name had historic value which I wouldn't have thrown away, 'climb' is broader than 'mountaineering' - knocking off single pitch routes at Stanage (probably the most popular activity of BMC members outdoors?) is hardly mountaineering

climb, in my opinion is much narrower. climbing involves going vertically up. mountaineering includes all the skills required to get you to and up a mountain.


mountain sports UK would have been better and ticked the boxes they are trying to tick
Post edited at 15:51
1
Offwidth 25 Jul 2016
In reply to andrewmcleod:

Stanage single pitchers don't struggle to understand that the BMC represents them ... hill walkers might with Climb Britain. Also have you ever costed the complete change of a visual identity in an organisation... stationary, banners, web, changeover arrangements etc? I bet you won't find many takers in the BMC membership who would prefer spending in that area without good reasons. The key question is: what are the benefits that outweigh the costs?

I do wonder if they have hedged their bets on Brexit by recognising Scotland may not be in Britain much longer.
Neil Williams 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Absolutely awful idea. Looks like an ape of ClimbUK (i.e. the commercial company operating Big Rock and the Beacon), and shows a huge disregard for hillwalkers.
Neil Williams 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

The brand would be fine for a new-startup operator of climbing activities or artificial climbing walls.

Not for a historic and respected organisation like the BMC.
ScottTalbot 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

That sounds very climbing oriented. What about the hill walkers and mountaineers?
I've never understood why Scotland has a separate mountaineering body either!?! Aren't they part of Britain? This week anyway...
1
Adam_42 25 Jul 2016
In reply to JR_NL:

I'd say by the amount of time, money and coverage they spend on covering indoor events and international competitions that it's very obvious that indoor climbers are welcome.

My gut instinct when I heard this was that I didn't like it. But as someone who was involved in running a University Club when it was forced to drop the Mountaineering portion of its name, I have first-hand experience of a name change not actually altering what the club is, does or what it stands for. I more than understand the concern, but if the BMC keep doing the things that I value most, then I can put up with a re-brand.

However, I wish we could have had a little more honesty and forewarning from the BMC. I suspect this has come as a result of "advice" from Sport England to prepare for Olympics...etc and ensure funding. I find it hard to believe that it's to help the BMC reach out to younger people, because they actually do a fantastic job of that. In the last ten years, they've modernised tremendously and are actually very good at staying ahead of the curve in terms of online technologies. To suggest they need a re-brand to appeal to them just because they're more focussed on indoor climbing than previous generations is clearly nonsense.

PS Mountaineering seems more inclusive for hill walkers, trail runners...etc to me and writing "climb hills" under your logo won't change that. Seems like we're swapping one imperfect name for another in that regard.

Neil Williams 25 Jul 2016
In reply to JR_NL:

No, it doesn't. It doesn't mention hillwalking.

The only people who refer to hillwalking as climbing (e.g. "climbing Snowdon") are people who don't actually take part in the activity and the odd tourist.
1
Neil Williams 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Jonathan:

TBH, "Mountaineering Britain" wouldn't sound terrible, if they really want to go that way.
JHiley 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

"Hi Mr Crag Owner, someone from Climb Britain is on the phone to negotiate access for erm... climbers."

It just doesn't have the same weight as the British Mountaineering Council.

It looks like the credibility of the organisation and the interests of outdoor climbers are being sacrificed for a catchy name to impress Sport England and potentially UK Sport with the Olympics in mind.

Surely sport climbing is strong enough to stand on its own beside the likes of golf or synchronized swimming without having to resort to gimmicks?

*If this isn't a huge troll, which is what it looks like*
Crewey-Rob 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Crikey everyone.. Relax!!

Yeah, perhaps the new fangled make over doesn't sit well with every faction of the outdoor demographic. However, the BMC (as it was) could be perceived as a fusty cardiganed institution - handing out grants to Cambridge undergraduates. Bearded, pipe smoking professors indulging the ambitions of the elite. What's wrong with a little make over once every century or so?
40
ianstevens 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Good, I like it.

It reflects the majority of its members well: Brits who walk up UK hills or do some rock/winter climbing in the UK. None of which is mountaineering.
22
toad 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

We know several BMC bods read the forums and aren't slow to offer an opinion. Has there been a media strategy memo sent round today? No comment or social media other than through our official communications partners Willoughby, Willoughby, Gladbetook and Wretches?
ScraggyGoat 25 Jul 2016
The change is obviously geared at funding, however this may be one small step towards constitutional change. At present the BMC / Climb Britian is a 'representative' body. I.e. You / we tell our representatives what they should focus on, but often some Sports funding is/was commonly only awarded to 'Governing' bodies........which obviously turns the relationship around.

Does anyone know is competitive sports funding still only given to governing organisations.......?

NeilMac 25 Jul 2016
In reply to ScottTalbot:

> I've never understood why Scotland has a separate mountaineering body either!?! Aren't they part of Britain? This week anyway...


They'll have to re-do their logo again to take out the blue bit when Scotland "Sexits"!!
Purple 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

To be formally launched at Kendal Mountain Festival in early December?

KMF is 17th-20th November I believe - any chance of a check & correction if needed UKC?
Michael Hood 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News: As a member of the BMC I am a bit p*ssed off that the membership wasn't consulted. Maybe not to the level of which name do you prefer, but at least to the "we're thinking of changing name because of a, b, c, etc. what are your thoughts".

This has been given to us as a fait acompli which isn't a very good way to run a representative body.

Nordie_matt 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Steve nevers:

> As a BMC member i'd rather the focus is on access and outdoor climbing/walking/etc rather than it mutating into a body that primarily is interested in getting medals.

Well said, have a like.
In reply to Purple:

You're quite right, not sure where Dan got early December from.

I'll change that now.
Graeme Hammond 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Has anyone told niall grimes as he might have to change the title of his next book
Steve Woollard 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

What a waste of time and money, so that's why the subs were increased!

They should concentrate of their core activity - mountaineering, and leave indoor climbing and competitions to others.
NeilMac 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
Re the question of hill wlakers. The BMC say:

Today the BMC announced it will be changing its name to £Climb Britain£. Many walkers may hear this new name and wonder if it applies to them.

The answer is that of course it does. £Climb£ is not the same as £climbing£.

The BMC is a broad cathedral of people. The majority of our members say hill walking is their main activity, but there are also climbers, boulderers, indoor climbers and mountaineers, and many people who are a mix of all the above.

What we have in common is that we all climb stuff. We represent a continuum of activities which vary in style but all share challenge and adventure as essential characteristics. Walking is a hugely important part of this mix.

And the new name will not affect the vital work we do to protect the rights of ordinary people to access the countryside and look after the mountain landscape, which many walkers value and benefit from.

More: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/what-climb-britain-means-for-walkers
Post edited at 16:37
7
HfH 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I always thought the old logo was a great bit of graphic design. Surprising for bmc.
It's hard to come up with a clean logo without looking like a million other outdoors logos.
Now as others have said it smacks of team gb. The typeface is terrible.
MooseMouse 25 Jul 2016

Who made this decision and who was consulted?

The BMC is a representative, democratic organisation.

Who are the current on National Council Representatives(elected by the National Council) on the Executive Committee?

Was this decision ever discussed by our democratically elected representatives at National council? If so, were the area committees consulted?

I can think of no reason why the area committees were not consulted regarding such a large, costly and controversial change, other than that the area committees might have voted for the 'wrong' outcome.

I'm speculating, and I have no idea about who is currently involved, but if it is true that the national council was not consulted(nor area's at least informed), you can bet that the reasons for the change to Climb Britain would have been felt to be seen as detrimental to the interests of mountaineers and hill walkers.

My initial suspicion would be that the name change is a required step towards the single national GOVERNING body that the Olympic committee demands.

I'd like some assurance that this isn't a case of the tail wagging the dog?
Post edited at 16:43
1
Trangia 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Terrible idea, and as has been said Mountaineering is much more inclusive a name for all disciplines.

I agree that it's disgusting that the Membership was not consulted .. I shall seriously consider not rejoining when the membership sub comes up for renewal.

Are April Fools jokes only limited to April 1st!!!
1
hgboyle25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

In Ireland almost everything has become " "something" Ireland ". The Mountaineering Council of Ireland became "Mountaineering Ireland" and we have "Canoeing Ireland" "Swim Ireland" ... the list goes on even to government bodies. The funders seem to insist on it! It all seems very neo-liberal. Take the "council" out of the name and the the association of democracy goes with it.
chuffer 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Michael Hood:

The BMC hasn't been a representative body for a long time. For ages they have presented themselves as a governing body rather than a representative body - I suspect because of the way Sport Englan funding is handed out.

I did always wonder if they actually had a mandate for the change from the membership, who are technically supposed to be in control of the company.
Nordie_matt 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Word is "Summit" magazine will be getting a rebrand too, henceforth members can expect a copy of "That yellow 7b on the overhang" magazine in the post. :p
SteveM 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

What monies have been spent on the consultancy with b-focussed and Thinkfarm? What additional spend will be required on re-branding? What assets will be written down/un-used due to the BMC name & logo no longer being used?

As a long-term member of the BMC I have previously felt engaged and informed about the changes, their drivers and justification of the change. I do not feel engaged or informed about the change to "Climb Britain" or the reasons/justifications for it happening.

How will that gap in engagement and the cost questions above be addressed?
muppetfilter 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

This has to be a joke ...

http://www.b-focused.com/who-we-are-2/
Steve nevers 25 Jul 2016
In reply to chuffer:

> The BMC hasn't been a representative body for a long time. For ages they have presented themselves as a governing body rather than a representative body - I suspect because of the way Sport Englan funding is handed out.

Spot on, they seem far more interested in maintaining themselves than listening to their members.

toad 25 Jul 2016
In reply to NeilMac:

>

> And the new name will not affect the vital work we do to protect the rights of ordinary people to access the countryside and look after the mountain landscape, which many walkers value and benefit from.

I really hope this is the case. But it's (forlorn) hope rather than expectation

Steve Perry 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

After 6 months they come up with Climb Britain, someone turn the lights off we're f**ked!!

1
Purple 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

> You're quite right, not sure where Dan got early December from.

> I'll change that now.

Ta Rob.
Neil Williams 25 Jul 2016
In reply to NeilMac:

Is not the MTA more of a Governing Body than the BMC?
2
3leggeddog 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

How much of our subscription funds were invested/wasted on the consultancy and rebrand?

How much more will be invested/wasted in the subsequent marketing of the new brand that does exactly what the old one did.

Jobs for the boys methinks, it is all starting to whiff of politics and big business to me.

Not keen at all, we need ken Wilson now more than ever.
1
JayPee630 25 Jul 2016
In reply to muppetfilter:

That is horrible! I don't know whether to laugh or puke.
2
JayPee630 25 Jul 2016
In reply to 3leggeddog:

Not to mention the fact it looks like a logo/design that was knocked up in ten minutes.
dpmUK 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

In the news item on their website they have a link for "The process that led to Climb Britain". I somewhat naively thought this would describe things like why they thought name change was important in the first place, who was consulted, what they needed to do from a legal perspective, how they got feedback from members etc. You know, the process. Instead it just appears to be bs from one of the companies involved. I'm not against this change if it's properly justified and the interested parties (especially the members) are properly consulted. At the moment I can see no proper justification from the BMC and nothing about the consultations they have undertook. Seems there's been a complete lack of respect for members. I stopped attending area meeting several years ago because it seemed like normal members were ignored. Good to see nothing has changed.

This has caused me to post on UKC for the first time in years!
Wulfrunian 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Neil Williams:


> The only people who refer to hillwalking as climbing (e.g. "climbing Snowdon") are people who don't actually take part in the activity and the odd tourist.

I beg to differ. I regularly hill walk and often climb Snowdon, or any other steep hill that takes my fancy. As far as I'm concerned, climb means 'go up'. However, I probably am an odd tourist so maybe you have a point.

Still a crap name and a crap logo though...
Bellie 25 Jul 2016
In reply to HfH:


> Now as others have said it smacks of team gb. The typeface is terrible.

Must have got a job lot from Channel 4.

Obviously the in look - these chiselled fonts. Ready to be out of date in a few years.


baron 25 Jul 2016
In reply to 3leggeddog:
And where's Dennis Grey when you need him?
MooseMouse 25 Jul 2016
In reply to mark_wellin:

> mountain sports UK would have been better and ticked the boxes they are trying to tick

Scotland and Northern Ireland might not have been so keen on the all encompassing 'UK'!

Not sure who covers the representation of climbers and hill walkers in the channel isles and other Crown Dependencies!

Greasy Prusiks 25 Jul 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

Do you have a link to that interview please? Sounds interesting.
JayPee630 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Bellie:

Yup and will then need more money spent on updating the design.

And with this change did anyone see any polls or know anyone that was asked? Was anything in Summit or on here? Seems very odd and poor form for the BMC or the company to not have actually asked members or the climbing community...
Steve Perry 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Looks like they've just gone for the best google search options "climb" "Britain"
RBK 25 Jul 2016
In reply to HfH:

> Now as others have said it smacks of team gb. The typeface is terrible.

Hardly surprising as 'b-focused' did the Team GB branding as well.....

1
Trangia 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Any Lawyers in the House?

Does the Council (ie BMC) have the authority to change it's name without consulting the membership or is a decision such as this ultra vires?
lithos 25 Jul 2016
In reply to MooseMouse:

given climbbritain.co.uk was registered by the BMC in March maybe it is an April fool but just subject to some delays ?
Dave Hewitt 25 Jul 2016
In reply to baron:

> And where's Dennis Grey when you need him?

And where's The Angry Corrie when you need it?

At least the MCofS change isn't so grim, and doesn't appear to involve a new logo as yet. Re consultants, there was a story 15 or so years ago, when the YHA was having a major revamp and in due course hit choppy financial waters and closed various hostels, that it had employed consultants who declined to stay in any of the hostels even for free, opted instead for fairly fancy hotels and then billed the YHA. I seem to recall there was even mention of an aeroplane having been hired. This might have been an apocryphal or embellished story, but I was told it by a well-connected (and well disgruntled) person in hostelling circles. Hiring consultants does usually seem to take a fair wodge of dosh out of the organisation in question, however it happens.
toad 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Trangia:
It's rebranding, rather than an official name change, so I suspect membership consultation not required. And it's a nice long time to the next ago, so I'm guessing they're hoping the fuss will have died down by then. Seems pretty cynical to me.
jon 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

This has to be an elaborate troll... surely? No one in their right mind would change a perfectly good and well respected name to something as naff as that? And come up with an incredibly badly drawn soulless logo from the 80s - seriously, it looks like the product of a junior school competition. Just naff, naff, naff...
Bellie 25 Jul 2016
In reply to JayPee630:

Interesting... and maybe unrelated, but an organisation I do work for, announced it was undergoing a consultation regarding a rebrand, citing reach and all that. I thought it was an odd decision for them to do so (for reasons I won't go into).

They receive significant funding from Sport England.
Graeme Alderson 25 Jul 2016
In reply to SteveM:

My guess is that the re-branding will cost about the same as when they last changed the logo, only the internet didn't really exist in those days so no one whinged That re-branding was early 2000's from memory and stuff like old stationary was still used for all sorts of stuff until it ran out.

Ps I think the new logo is rubbish and the new name isn't right.

Graham Booth 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

WTF is that about?????

BMC had really credibility. This sounds like the next branch of the odious Sports Direct brand
Si dH 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I like it and I like the logo too. It feels more modern and 'cool'. If that makes me too young and trendy then I'll take it
29
Graeme Alderson 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Trangia:

From memory the Articles need AGM approval for change, so my guess is that the BMC is still legally the BMC but will henceforth be known as as CB. In much the same way as my company has a legal name but we can change the 'Trading As' name without changing the Articles.
muppetfilter 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Did they employ people like .... Susan Hunt

Susan is a Board level strategist with unrivalled experience in global marketing, brand development, sponsorship and corporate affairs. She has represented rights holders including UK Athletics, and the Delhi 2010 and Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games among others.

Highly experienced sales consultant and negotiator who understands the UK marketplace and more recently provides access and support in India.
Susan is as comfortable in a pair of Jimmy Choos as she is climbing up Mount Everest – or any other mountain peak around the world.

Its fab to know BMC subscriptions went to fund posh shoe wearing 8000M climbers ...
Graeme Alderson 25 Jul 2016
In reply to muppetfilter:

I have no idea as I have never heard of her.

But which of my points are you responding to?
Steve Woollard 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I climb stairs, does that count?
JayPee630 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I know it's a small point in the large mess of the whole thing, but the use of red, white, and blue really rankles with me in the recent Brexit and rise of petty nationalism.
1
Glyno 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Graham Booth:

>

>This sounds like the next branch of the odious Sports Direct brand

you've hit the nail on the head
Lusk 25 Jul 2016
In reply to muppetfilter:

Or, there's Emily Watkinson who "In her spare time, Ems can be found clad in wet weather gear walking (struggling) up a mountainside, or else (preferably) on the sofa watching a Test Match."


Maybe they should have renamed it as 'Struggling Britain'


SenzuBean 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

On the plus side, Barrow Mountaineering [and Ski..] Club will finally be able to claim their rightful acronym.
planetmarshall 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Si dH:

> I like it and I like the logo too.... If that makes me too young and trendy then I'll take it

Alas you undermined yourself by using the term 'trendy'.
JayPee630 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Glyno:

Be interested to see how much this cost. Any connections between Sport England and this rebranding company? Any connections between the company and the BMC?

Combined with no consultation it all looks very dodgy and out of order to me.
abr1966 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Appalling corporate sounding shite..
lostcat 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Bloody c0ck wombles!
JayPee630 25 Jul 2016
In reply to lostcat:
Come on BMC office people readers, answer these questions and issues please...

Who did you consult?
What did the membership say?
What did the winder climbing community say?
How much did it cost?
Who recommended the company you used?
Post edited at 18:26
SenzuBean 25 Jul 2016
In reply to NeilMac:

> What we have in common is that we all climb stuff.

Now that I think about it, that's something worth questioning. Many of us are actually quite quick to say we don't all climb stuff. If I've walked up a grassy lump, I feel wrong to actually say I climbed it. I never say I climbed anything, unless I used my hands.

Someone who wrote a few books or so once said something similar: "If you have to step over a dead body half way up then it's classed as a walk. On real climbs the bodies fall to the bottom".

3leggeddog 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Rather than ranting on here (of which I am guilty), email you questions and concerns to the BMC, it is more likely to get a response
Robert Durran 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:
> You cannot possibly be serious.

Indeed. Everyone can see that there is chalk dust.
Post edited at 18:45
Xharlie 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
This thread is already very long so just ignore anything that has been said before...

1. How many BMC members on these forums were asked for their input during the "nine month" study? Any at all?

2. Why "climb"? I thought the no-longer-BMC was also the national body for mountaineering in general, including hiking, bothying, ski-mountaineering and everything else people do on steep-ish terrain.

3. Why "britain"? What about the UK as a whole?

4. "Climb Britain" fails the Google test where as "British Mountaineering Club" really doesn't.

5. People expect to find "Mountain" or "Mountaineering" clubs in every land and they're typically named as such. See "Mountain Club of South Africa" and "Deutscher Alpenverein". Nobody is going to land in the UK and just guess "Oh, I should phone up the "Climb Britain" blokes to ask about access and emergency numbers." No. They'll look (probably on Google, see 4) for some sort of "Mountain" or "Mountaineering" club.

6. Are you sure it isn't April 1?

7. See 6 again. Check again.

EDIT: Before you point out that the 'C' stood for 'Council' and NOT 'Club', in my mind it has always been 'Club'. Perhaps that is the solution to the imaginary problem: change the 'C' to 'club'.
Post edited at 18:40
muppetfilter 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

The point i was trying to make is that precious resources have been squandered by the BMC paying to follow an agenda that hasn't either dictated by or is in the best interest of its members.
Si dH 25 Jul 2016
In reply to planetmarshall:

> Alas you undermined yourself by using the term 'trendy'.

Darn.
Darren Jackson 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Graeme Hammond:

> Has anyone told niall grimes as he might have to change the title of his next book

He's been rebranded too; henceforth, 'he's' to be referred to as Nell Grinds.

Do yourself a favour, and don't watch the promotional twerking video.
Post edited at 18:54
Fraser 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

> 'Hill walking, climbing and mountaineering have evolved since the BMC was first established in 1944, and the name ‘Mountaineering Council’ doesn’t quite cut it these days'

Oh really? Evolved into what? What is it that's changed?
captain paranoia 25 Jul 2016
In reply to JR_NL:

> As a non-UK member I quite like the change.

If your 'NL' user name means you're from the Netherlands, maybe you were subconsciously influenced by the use of the Netherlands flag for the little mountain...
slinky wizard 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
Hasn't anyone from the bmc/cb/ got the balls to come on this forum ?
MooseMouse 25 Jul 2016
In reply to JayPee630:

> Come on BMC office people readers, answer these questions and issues please...

> Who did you consult?

> What did the membership say?

> What did the winder climbing community say?

> How much did it cost?

The BMC office staff will not be able to help.

The first people from whom to demand answers are those who have been elected by the national council to make sure that the executive committee operate in accordance with the the wishes of the membership and with the oversight of the national council.

These responsible are listed here;

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-executive-committee

In my opinion, for a decision such as branding and renaming the national council representatives on the committee should have, as a minimum, insisted that the decision be put to the member's elected representatives, i.e. the national council.
I would have expected there to then be a membership consultation, or at least, and information session at area meetings.

So, the people to hold to account, are not the BMC office staff, but rather first the executive committee, then the national council, as it seems it would be impossible for this decision to have escaped them.

To me, it seems obvious that there would be strong feeling about this from the membership at large and I can only assume that the executive, and probably some of the national council representatives where asleep on the job, while the machinery of the Sports Council ran (Olympic) rings around our history and heritage.

I am extremely disappointed that the executive are seeking to drop the word 'council' from the name, especially since the sports council has previously commended the BMC for its commitment to democracy.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were calls for a motion of no confidence from the membership.
captain paranoia 25 Jul 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

> we receive some funding from sport England, but they only give it to us if there is a chance that we'll produce some gold medal athletes for the Olympics

Personally, I'd prefer the BMC to tell Sport England to do one.

Chasing Olympic medal prospects at all costs is not, IMHO, what the BMC, or, for that matter, other sporting bodies should be about. They should be about representing and encouraging participation, for the general health of the nation.

Sport climbing is only one part of what the BMC should be representing, and competitive sport climbing an even smaller part. It should not be able to hold the rest to ransom.

I hope the money Climb Britain will get from Sport England will cover the reduction in loss of membership fees that this change may trigger...
Iwan 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I could eat a can of Alphabetti Spaghetti and a bar of Xlax and shart out a better name! The word 'mountaineering' encompasses all disciplines such as climbing, ski mountaineering, hiking, walking, alpinism, camping etc and does not exclude bouldering, sport climbing or wall climbing as they are training disciplines for mountaineering...
2
La benya 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Could someone/ everyone please email the BMC and or the local rep and ask for an explanation, costing and why the members weren't involved considering they pay for it? I just wrote my email and then realised my membership had lapsed. I shan't be renewing, but would love some more detail.
bensilvestre 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Im sure ill get used to the name over time but my god that logo is godawful. I could do better with word art
Xharlie 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

After reading the whole thread, I agree that this rebranding was precipitated by the highly likely inclusion of "Climbing" in the Olympics. I think the evidence is in abundance. The BMC, now "Climb Britain", will now proceed to mutate into a governing body of climbing. It will no longer be a representative body, focussing mainly on unity amongst members and access for members.

This is why I really hate the idea of climbing becoming an Olympic sport. With climbing out of the Olympics, competitive climbing would remain the domain of independent organisers, most of whom have a vested interest in the health of the sport itself because they make their income directly from climbers and climbing (Petzl, Black Diamond, DMM, every other climbing brand...) or from extreme sports as a concept (GoPro, Red Bull...). They could never survive off the paltry few competitive climbers and so they need to ensure that the grass-roots level is healthy and their competitions or the road to competitions will never interfere with that.

The Olympics is simply something too big. It dominates. There's too much money, there - enough to ignore the grass-roots and the silent majority, enough to feed entirely off itself.

Apart from EU certification of rated gear, climbing needs no regulation or governance. We do not need a rule-book.

What we need is a representative organisation who will keep us together, keep rogue climbers in check and smooth things over with land-owners, who might be aggrieved by those rogue members of our community.

What we need is an organisation that will put up "Check your Partner" posters in gyms and make safe climbing "cool" - something the BMC did do, although apparently only so as to appear to have "done something" for the sport.

I think the BMC might just have signed a warrant for their demise. If the future unfolds as I predict, we weekend amateurs will simply leave. (I am not a member. I am a member of the Deutscher Alpenverein, loving what they offer even if a lot of it is not applicable to me because my German isn't all that good (yet), and have also been a member of other mountain clubs in the past.) They will have no relevance outside the small group of nutters who actually care about indoor-speed-bouldering and have Olympic ambitions.

We need a new representative body to take on the charge of unity & access.
1
toad 25 Jul 2016
In reply to mark_wellin:

If you read the story on the BMC website, they are apparently reading ukc as they talk about the reaction to it. Apparently we're going on an exciting journey! Who knew?
1
sheelba 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Finally an issue that unites pretty much all UKC members!
1
Nordie_matt 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-to-change-its-name-to-climb-britain

May as well vent your frustration directly on the BMC website, make the discontent blatantly obvious to them...
La benya 25 Jul 2016
In reply to toad:

They're idiots. Fantastic responses. Out of all of the above, maybe 5 have not been negative and they've have been, at best, neutral to the change.
Their answers to questions posed are simple non- answers.
Although the fact that sport England paid for the rebrand and then they assert is has nothing to do with olympics is a bald faced lie. Sport England only fund sports with a healthy participation and a realistic chance of winning a medal. Basketball fell foul of this and was scrapped
Sean Kelly 25 Jul 2016
In reply to mark_wellin:

> mountain sports UK would have been better and ticked the boxes they are trying to tick
What about "the Federation for Climbers in the United Kingdom"! Sort of trips off the tongue, don't you think?

La benya 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Sean Kelly:

Thinking about his I don't have a problem with the new name IF their remit was solely for the purposes of promoting sport climbing and competitions. But they could have just created a division within the BMC or a new organisation for that. Instead they've ruined something everyone quite liked, to service something not everyone likes, for an end goal that few like, by a rebrand that no one likes
john mc c 25 Jul 2016
In reply to muppetfilter:

It has to be surely if this makes it in Summit....

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/how-to-survive-pokemon-go-in-the-wild
Greasy Prusiks 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Prepare for a rant.

I know this is just a name change but what it represents is really starting to piss me off. Why does climbing need to be homogenised and polished just so it can get in the Olympics? Bugger the Olympics I like climbing as it is.

Half the reason I climb is because it's not constrained by the bollocks of normal life. You just grab your rack, go find a cliff and try and drag yourself up it. It's a bit of risk that you can have in your life, if you don't place good gear it's you that's going to get burnt. Frankly climbing is a stupid thing to do for fun but we do it anyway.

We don't a governing body from the BMC we want climbers to be the governing body and the BMC to give us a voice in land access and ethics ect nothing more. Why does the errm 'mud' that is climbing need to be rolled in corporate glitter? If it does need 'modernising' can we at least role it in our own chalk? It'll be a lot cheaper.


Rant over.
MooseMouse 25 Jul 2016
I would recommend obtaining clarification those people who have been elected to represent the interests of the membership.

Since the decision was likely made at the executive committee;

from the link;
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-executive-committee

the national council representatives on the executive committee, voted in by the national council members to oversee the work of the executive;

Colin Knowles
Deirdre Collier

The presidents, nominated by the national council and voted in by the BMC membership at AGM.

Rehan Siddiqui
John Simpson
Rupert Davies
Nicholas Kurth
Emma Flaherty

I would have expect the executive committee to have consulted with the national council about the name change. It would then be a decision for national council about whether the members should be consulted via the area meetings.
I have no idea if the executive committee consulted with the national council, it might be worth checking the minutes of the national council minutes.

If the above faces are not forthcoming, it might be worth asking your elected local area national council representative.

Here they are;
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-national-council

Pete Sterling & Ted Rogers (Lakes)
Lisa Payne & Rik Payne (London & South East)
Phil Simister & Roger Fanner (Midlands)
Mark Anstiss & Alan Hinkes (North East)
Nick Bond & Tim Greehalgh (North West)
David Brown & Rob Greenwood (Peak)
Colin Knowles & Gareth Palmer (South West)
Deirdre Collier & James Rowe (Yorkshire)
Jim Kelly & Anthony Eccles (North Cymru/Wales)
Will Kilner (South Cymru/Wales)


The BMC office should be able to put you in touch with the above people and confirm that those lists are still current. These people stood for election, hopefully that the interests of members would be represented in the operations of the BMC. Therefore they should be only too willing to keep you informed and listen to your concerns.

The decision to change the name, with the obvious refocusing of the BMC away from the democracy that dropping the term, 'council' implies is not a fait accompli.

If enough people make their feelings known to their elected rep, the initiative will disappear like many an initative has in the past.
pec 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Crewey-Rob:

> . . . the BMC (as it was) could be perceived as a fusty cardiganed institution - handing out grants to Cambridge undergraduates. Bearded, pipe smoking professors indulging the ambitions of the elite. >

It could be if you've been living in a cave for the last decade or two, otherwise you might have noticed that the principal function of the tirelessly self promoting BMC seems to have become to organise endless symposia to tick every politically correct box on the government "can we have some more cash please" forms which they then spend promoting competitions about which the majority of climbers are either totally ambivalent or outrightly hostile.

Its about time we had two organisations, one governing body for competitions which could incorporate walls, training and other indoor activities and then a genuinely representative body (which was what the BMC was originally supposed to be) for everything outside. There's no reason why people couldn't be affiliated to both should they wish.

Deleted bagger 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Rubbish name change. I hope they didn't pay anyone to come up with that pile of pish!
1
pec 25 Jul 2016
In reply to muppetfilter:

> Susan is as comfortable in a pair of Jimmy Choos as she is climbing up Mount Everest – or any other mountain peak around the world. >

They must be bloody uncomfortable shoes then. Does Jimmy Choo make plastic boots now?



FactorXXX 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Is it true that the BBC are going to rename themselves: 'Telly Britain'?
DerwentDiluted 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Will the disgruntled membership leave? Climb Brexit?
jon 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Sean Kelly:

> What about "the Federation for Climbers in the United Kingdom"! Sort of trips off the tongue, don't you think?

Bit like the Climbers Union of Northern Tasmania, you mean?
Bellie 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

This on the BMC website in response from some of the questions...

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/climb-britain-the-facts

1
Bulls Crack 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Bellie:

Will BMC members now be known as CBeebies?
Pursued by a bear 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Bellie:

Can I ask that the press officer who came up with the phrase 'broad cathedral' receives a special beating, please?

A cathedral is only a building; a church is much more, and so much broader.

T.
Xharlie 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Bellie:
According to those Facts, the Olympic bid has nothing at all to do with this farce, leaving only two reasons to change the name: the old name was old and acronyms are out of fashion.

It doesn't add up. Clubs and organisations with decades of history do not simply burn their legacies (and a great deal of good-will and cash) because their name is old and often abbreviated. That's blatant stupidity and surely at least SOME of those 19 voters on the national council would have called it.

I call shenanigans.

EDIT: Yes, yes. "All of the consultancy work leading up to the Climb Britain announcement has been funded by Sport England." whatever. That's just the tip of the ice-berg. What about the t-shirts, hoodies and coffee cups, banners and stationary, paperwork, contracts, ...
Post edited at 21:01
Bellie 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

Its known as a bad case of the bull sh!ts contagious. He might have caught it from the initial press release
ByEek 25 Jul 2016
In reply to mark_wellin:

> Thinking about his I don't have a problem with the new name IF their remit was solely for the purposes of promoting sport climbing and competitions. But they could have just created a division within the BMC or a new organisation for that. Instead they've ruined something everyone quite liked, to service something not everyone likes, for an end goal that few like, by a rebrand that no one likes

Not really. All they have done is change the name. Admittedly it is a few years now, but the last time I was in the office, you will be amazed to hear that no one had a knarly beard, or wore red knee length socks, or smoked a pipe, or had their ventile jacket hanging on a peg, or their hemp rope stowed in the corner.

Times change and with it the images one wants to present to the outside world. The new name is more about those who look in than us looking out. You know that types - the sort of people who say things like "You climb bare handed!?" in a slightly ironic tone.
9
Bellie 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Xharlie:

I wonder why the pressing need to attract under 25s to the BMC. SO what if we members are older. I'm sure there are many reasons young people feel no need to join a representative organisation, and its got nothing to do with 'hey thats an old farts club'. What if the oldies like the name Council... are we to be cast aside in favour of the clammer to get the youth in the door? oooh Climb Britain, that sounds rad.

1
FactorXXX 25 Jul 2016
In reply to ByEek:

Not really. All they have done is change the name. Admittedly it is a few years now, but the last time I was in the office, you will be amazed to hear that no one had a knarly beard, or wore red knee length socks, or smoked a pipe, or had their ventile jacket hanging on a peg, or their hemp rope stowed in the corner.

Well, it's been a few years since Graeme Alderson worked there I suppose...
Bellie 25 Jul 2016
In reply to ByEek:

Knarly beards and tweedy clobber. Isn't that just the sort of thing young hipster types sport these days?
Xharlie 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Bellie:

I'm pretty sure that most of what we're now reading is probably written by b-focused and ThinkFarm. They're professionals at this sort of caper and smoothing feathers during the transition period and running a social media campaign to minimise lost good-will is part of their modus operandi.

On the note of under 25's: I'm surprised that such a high number (over 1/8th) of the membership are so young, actually. 1/8th really doesn't sound so terrible since the exBMC was an organisation one might quite literally join for life, and one that you really don't need to join at all in order to take part in the sports it represents.
tonanf 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Just a name change. But a change to a lesser name. Waste of time and money. Can't be bothered to read why they say their doing it. I guess they have plenty of time to waste thinking about changing names?
La benya 25 Jul 2016
In reply to ByEek:

As I said, it's not just a name change, it's the reasoning behind the change and the refocusing to things that mean very little to a great majority of their membership.
Also, as I said, it's no bad thing to look ahead and get ready for the new things coming (olympics) but it's at odds with what they have historically done.
Michael Gordon 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Like just about everyone else I half hoped this was a very late April Fool.

God knows why they can't just create a separate brand for competitions and getting youngsters into climbing like the MCofS have done with 'ClimbScotland'. This name is surely a copy of that but somehow they've got over-excited and decided to re-name the whole organisation that!


"Hill walking, climbing and mountaineering have evolved since the BMC was first established in 1944, and the name ‘Mountaineering Council’ doesn’t quite cut it these days" says Dave Turnbull.

Is there any further explanation regarding the above quote? I honestly don't see what's wrong with 'Mountaineering Council'.
1
tonanf 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Probably to differentiate different business activities of the BMC which still exists, from Climb Britain, the out door moving up and down info and access organisation
tonanf 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

You have to do hill walking to do mountaineering but you don't have to do hill walking to do mountin eering so BMC is more representitive a name
James_Kendal 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I quite like the new name, and clearly it is more representative than the old one.

But I really hate the weird font on "climb". It will annoy me every single time I see it. It adds nothing to the logo and just makes it awkward to read.
11
Nordie_matt 25 Jul 2016
Maybe a intellectual property suit from Norsk Fjellsportforum would put an end to the logo ;)

http://www.fjellsportforum.no
1
tonanf 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Michael Gordon:

They haven't renamed the whole organisation. Crags are still owned by the BMC
Robert Durran 25 Jul 2016
In reply to ByEek:

> Times change and with it the images one wants to present to the outside world.

"One"? Who are you talking about. Who gives a shit what the outside world thinks of climbing?

tom_in_edinburgh 25 Jul 2016


In a related announcement the English Collective of Prostitutes have been advised by Thinkfarm to change their name to F**k Britain because what they have in common is that they all f**k stuff.

Robert Durran 25 Jul 2016
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> F**k Britain

I am literally weeping with laughter. I might be sick.
Gordon Stainforth 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Xharlie:
> According to those Facts, the Olympic bid has nothing at all to do with this farce, leaving only two reasons to change the name: the old name was old and acronyms are out of fashion.

> It doesn't add up. Clubs and organisations with decades of history do not simply burn their legacies (and a great deal of good-will and cash) because their name is old and often abbreviated. That's blatant stupidity and surely at least SOME of those 19 voters on the national council would have called it.

Talking of the modern dislike of acronyms, I'm now expecting that any minute the BBC will be renamed 'Broadcast Britain'.
Post edited at 22:09
Robert Durran 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Talking of the modern dislike of acronyms, I'm now expecting any minute that the BBC will be renamed 'Broadcast Britain'.

More likely "Television Britain" to make radio listeners feel excluded.
Gordon Stainforth 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

Never "Television" - that's far too long a word. It would have to be "Telly Britain".
Ian Carey 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I like it.

The BMC has widened it's reach and appeal over the past years, which I welcome and membership has increased.

I consider myself a mountaineer (only because I can't climb anything harder than 5a!), but I hardly ever hear people saying that they are going mountaineering. Its all about climbing.

As the strap line to logo indicates: climb hills/rocks/indoors/ice/mountains.

I'm confident that most members will learn to live with this re-branding and over time will appreciate the benefits of the change.

If it doesn't work then we can hold the Trustees & Exec team to account, but I doubt that will be necessary.

Happy climbing hills/rocks/indoors/ice/mountains

Ian

17
Gordon Stainforth 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

... that would appeal more to Wally Britain ...
Graham Hoey 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Following on from today's news, new names will be used for all climbs in future guidebooks, in accordance with the examples below:

Corner Cenotaph

Unconquerable Left

Slab Great

you get the idea
SeeWhat 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Bellie:
If they received funding from Sport England, and the brand consultants also worked for organisations that branded the GB Olympic team, then it seems fair to ask the BMC / Climb Britain / Consignia / BoltClipTeamGB whether a condition of the funding was to use the same brand consultants, and ask to see a copy of the original brief prepared for them.

This seems like the first move in another ill advised attempt to get climbing into the Olympics.

Lastly, if you have to expain on day 1 of a rebrand that, after the rebranding, you're not excluding hillwalkers or a focus on access etc, then it's self evidently a failure.
Post edited at 22:22
Kipper 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Is not the MTA more of a Governing Body than the BMC?

The BMC has always been recognised as the National Governing Body (of Mountaineering) by Sport England.
philpdr 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Pathetic,total waste of time and money!
GeorgeFNewport 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News: Thoughts about the new branding-(rather than the name it's self) I don't much like it- the font bothers me in particular . I don't see why they couldn't have carried over elements of the old branding, such as the logo before 'BMC', the font (or a very similar style of font) and the overal colour. This would at least carry over some of the identity and therefore recognition. A crude way of putting it would be 'Someone's nicked the BMC's branding! Oh actually the BMC have changed their name but kept the branding'.
About the name- as a relatively new climber I initially didn't see the relevance of the BMC to me mainly because of the mountaineering bit in the name- particular as I mainly boulder. However I've had it explained to me some of the things they've done that have benefited all kinds of users of crags and got over that.
Someone suggested that it could be a 'branch' of the BMC but I can see the logic of why they are trying to keep everything under one umbrella, after all what would be next 'walk BRITAIN' or 'boulder BRITAIN' ?? That would foster division, nobody wants that.
However I'm not sure I'll be able to persuade my mates who are keen walkers but aren't climbers they 'climb' under the new logic!



1
Gordon Stainforth 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Neil Williams:

The MTA will just have to become 'Teachclimb Soc', or better, 'Teach Climb'
Kipper 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

'Thinkfarm' - Mushrooms?
SeeWhat 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

NewSpeak from IngSoc?
cyberpunk 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

How much did this cost? I would like to know a number to put this in perspective.
Gordon Stainforth 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

UKC will now have to follow suit, surely? and rebrand itself as 'Kingdom Climb' or 'Climb Kingdom', or better, 'Up Kingdom'. Where will this all end?
Bellie 25 Jul 2016
In reply to cyberpunk:

Nothing to the BMC... unless you factor in being the plaything of Sport England now. Sport England pay the branding people to come up with this, for BMC. UK Gov/Nat Lottery fund Sport England.

Ongoing costs now for BMC are the actual physical costs of the rebrand.

I think thats how its panning out.

Bobling 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
To quote the Bugle "What the f*ck just happened over there? What the f*ck did you just do?".

I really had to check the date on the post to make sure it wasn't April 1st.

More shock news "The British Army" rebranded to "Fight Britain".
Post edited at 23:05
myrddinmuse 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Reckon someone should start a petition...
Bootrock 25 Jul 2016
In reply to Bobling:

National Trust is going to rebrand to "Gardens Britain"


Brass Nipples 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Bye bye BMC , you are no longer our representative democratic body.
bouldery bits 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
I am rebranding myself to 'climb man'.
Post edited at 23:13
jonnie3430 25 Jul 2016
In reply to myrddinmuse:
> Reckon someone should start a petition...

Nah, freedom of information request for the costs, though you'll never get the truth as it would be hidden in other budgets. I wonder what the funding breakdown is? How much sport England and how much from members subscriptions.

Re: Comment on BMC website about 10% being under 25, maybe there is another reason apart from name that is not encouraging them to join? (Like what's the point? AAC is cheaper and more reliable.)
Post edited at 23:18
Bobling 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Jaysus, last time I posted that Summit seemed to have degenerated into Trail magazine someone from BMC was on here five seconds later to defend themselves. This happens and we get radio silence? Are they seriously sitting in the pub with a nice pint saying "Well I think that's gone rather well hasn't it?".
tsl42 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I would not call the BMC an "organisation". I would call the BMC an "institution" in the grandest use of the phrase. Similar to other world renown institutions like the Royal Society, the American Alpine Club or the International Olympic Committee itself. Institutions stand as pinnacles in times of change and challenge. Institutions do not simply change and morph because of the vagaries of public opinion, outcry and popularity. Institutions remember their purpose, and stand by that purpose, and remember that the towers of the future are built on the foundations of the past. Institutions remind us of the need for care in times of turbidity, and tweak and jiggle, rather than crash and smash. When institutions come to change, they do so with vehemence and slow, monolithic purpose after long discussion (not dissimilar to an Ent moot). This is how I regarded the BMC. Now, it seems, the BMC is content to become an "organisation", trying to find the highest of the white horses rather than be content to sit atop the wave. How long before the IOC become "Run World"?
Misha 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
Change for the sake of change, needlessly spending money along the way. 9 month consultancy project, what a joke! They could have paid for another footpath to be repaired or funded a few professional crag clean ups but I guess that kind of stuff isn't cool and doesn't polish someone's ego.

The logo is crap - the mountain bit is unimaginative while the font jars on the eye, plus they've unashamedly used British national colours as if the mountains can be appropriated by a particular nation.

Climb is arguably narrower than mountaineering - do hill walkers climb? I suppose you can say 'I've climbed a hill or a Munro' but does anyone say 'I'm going climbing' when they mean walking in the hills and mountains? Mountaineering in its broadest sense is something everyone who loves the outdoors can relate to, it's the love of being out in the hills and mountains, on the coast, in a forest, anywhere where we get to walk, scramble or climb in a nice place outdoors. Climbing is obviously what we do as climbers but somehow it comes across as less all-encompassing, focusing on the physical movement but not the surroundings. Something which seems more appropriate for indoor competitions, which is what the BMC seems to be gravitating towards! I think it's hard to get away from 'climb' being strongly associated with rock climbing, which rather flies in the face of trying to attract more hill walkers, who are after all a much larger demographic but who share similar concerns and interests as climbers. Perhaps we should ask the hill walkers though, I'd be interested in hearing their views.

Climb Britain sounds like a climbing guidebook, wall or shop, not a representative body. It comes across as something from a tourist brochure - "Hey you, come and climb Britain!" "Yeah, that was good, I've done it and got the t-shirt and even had enough change for an ice cream, gonna put it on Facebook now that I've climbed Britain!" It's a sterile name, just like Sport England, which is probably where the 'inspiration' (and perhaps instigation) came from.

By dropping 'council' they are also moving away from the fact that it is a membership based association which is meant to be (but increasingly isn't) controlled by its members. Again, a sad reflection of the way things are going. No wonder people are feeling increasingly disillusioned with and disconnected from the BMC / CB. What does it ever do for me? Waste money and time on pointless marketing clap trap, it seems...
Post edited at 23:35
Misha 25 Jul 2016
In reply to C Witter:
You've nailed it there.
Misha 25 Jul 2016
In reply to jon:

> Should have had a referendum. That would have sorted it.

Nah, you ask a question that doesn't need answering and get the wrong answer!
Jasonic 25 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Embarrassing- if the BMC no longer wishes to represent mountaineers will withdraw my subs & join Mountaineering Scotland instead!

Everything about this is naff, ill considered and the logo reminds one of the national front-
Ollie Keynes 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Bouldering Mountaineering Climbing, what was wrong with the BMC?
Also, the new one missed climb trees.
Dauphin 26 Jul 2016
In reply to john mc c:

> It has to be surely if this makes it in Summit....


I think some slow acid I dropped in 1997 just hit.

For the clicks baby.


WTAF?


D
J_Spooner 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Please sign the petition to stop the BMC changing it's name to Climb Britian.

https://www.change.org/p/british-mountaineering-council-stop-the-bmc-from-changing-its-name?recruite...
natetan 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

bleh. wank.
dpmUK 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I just cancelled my individual upgrade membership (from club membership) and told them exactly why.
Misha 26 Jul 2016
In reply to MooseMouse:

Thanks. I know the Midlands area reps and will ask them. I have checked the agenda for the Midlands area meeting which was in early June (before the national council meeting) and this wasn't on the agenda. I didn't go to the meeting - would have done if it had been!
Dell 26 Jul 2016
In reply to muppetfilter:

> This has to be a joke ...


B-focused, as in B-movie? or they just couldn't be arsed to write BE focused?
Misha 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dauphin:
That's unreal. It's like a Grimer joke, except it isn't....
andrewmc 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I don't really like the name, or the logo.

BUT...

Several people have argued that they (representing the membership) don't want the sport element of climbing, think we should tell Sport England to bugger off and not take their money,

Many (most?) of the people here are probably completely disconnected from the competition scene - which is totally fine. But there are people for whom part or everything about climbing is sport and competition. This is no less valid, and it is the role of the BMC to represent them too. Probably most climbers enjoy the non-competitive elements of climbing - either just going for a nice day out or trying hard to do the problem/route, indoors or outdoors. Others want to be the best, and love competing - it's what gets them climbing and training. Sport is not for everyone, but give it fair respect for those who enjoy it.

If I was in charge of the BMC, I would know the youth and adult squad, and how hard they train to compete on the world level. I would know the coaches and parents who help these kids succeed, and give them a fair shot to compete on the international stage. You may never understand their desire, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth supporting. That Sport England money might give those kids and athletes a bit more of a fair playing field with other nations, while potentially costing BMC members nothing or a minimal amount. Would you withhold that money from them just to avoid a rebranding (not even a name change in law, as I understand it)?

So yes, maybe it is a stupid logo, but maybe it isn't the end of the world. And more importantly, the rise of the new doesn't mean the death of the old.
27
alasdair19 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I've replied to the email i received from Dave Turnbull. it'd be great if he'd respond. I'm sure other share some of my concerns so maybe he can reply here.

hi dave 


This seems like a top down externally driven change and am not too happy.


Just out of interest was the cost met by sport England? Why didn't you crowd source the new brand from the members many of which are pretty handy graphic artists.


I'll be supporting any available motion at the AGM to block this rebranding and if large amounts of bmc cash from subscriptions has been spent I'll be expecting apologies and resignations from the executive team.


best wishes 

Alasdair Buchanan 
4
ByEek 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Who gives a shit what the outside world thinks of climbing?

We should. After all, it is some outside climbing who feel we are reckless, putting our lives at risk and those of our rescuers. It is some outside climbing who for irrational reasons don't like it and it is generally those outside climbing who own the crags we enjoy climbing on and are quite happy to ban us.

I have learned a couple of rather sad lessons in my 20 or so years of climbing. It is that climbers like a good moan, especially around petty issues concerning the BMC / Climb Britain and that some climbers are just down right selfish.
9
Dave Garnett 26 Jul 2016
In reply to andrewmcleod:

> If I was in charge of the BMC, I would know the youth and adult squad, and how hard they train to compete on the world level. I would know the coaches and parents who help these kids succeed, and give them a fair shot to compete on the international stage. You may never understand their desire, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth supporting. That Sport England money might give those kids and athletes a bit more of a fair playing field with other nations, while potentially costing BMC members nothing or a minimal amount. Would you withhold that money from them just to avoid a rebranding (not even a name change in law, as I understand it)?

I agree with a lot of this, I understand the desire to connect with younger, overwhelmingly indoor, climbers and I can imagine the pressure being exerted by Sport England to share their vacuous shallow branding. However, I don't understand why Climb Britain couldn't be the branding around the competition function of the BMC. That seems to me appropriate and should surely be enough for funding purposes. What I don't understand or agree with is the rebranding of the whole organisation, which is much broader than this, and the apparent change in policy and governance this implies.

> And more importantly, the rise of the new doesn't mean the death of the old.

You're right, it didn't need to be if it had been targeted at one particular part of the BMC's responsibilities but it will be if it's handled like this.
Trangia 26 Jul 2016
In reply to ByEek:
>especially around petty issues concerning the BMC / Climb Britain and that some climbers are just down right selfish.

>

I wouldn't call this rebranding "petty". It goes right to the core of our activities, and from the tone of the responses it's not only the name change that's unpopular but justifiable anger that our representative body has done this without consulting it's own membership.
Post edited at 07:17
Robert Durran 26 Jul 2016
In reply to ByEek:
> We should.

I asked who gave a shit what they think about climbing, not climbers. Not quite the same thing.
Post edited at 07:19
Bobling 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
Signed! https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-to-change-its-name-to-climb-britain#comment

Here's another I came up with overnight "University of Oxford" rebranded to...."Think Oxford". Bugg*r the history and the tradition, this one works much better on social media, less characters innit?
Post edited at 07:31
Big Ger 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Huhcorp strikes again?

http://www.huhcorp.com/
SeeWhat 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Bobling:
What they're doing is leaving voicemails for b-focussed Jimmy Choo Mount Everest Lady asking what the f**k they're supposed to do now - whether to deploy contingency plan A) "we're rumbled" or double down with contingency plan B) "Patronise the UKC Dinosaurs"
Post edited at 07:57
JayPee630 26 Jul 2016
In reply to SeeWhat:

IMO they knew this was going to cause a problem, and that's why they didn't ask the membership.

The reply they've given about the name change and how it was done through the Executive Committee as it is allowed was possibly factually correct, but smacks of manipulative games to avoid being accountable to the membership as we have some views they don't want to accommodate. For what reasons? Financial and their own job protection I suspect.

I'm willing to bet they're thinking and hoping this will die down to a few grumbles and they'll get away with it in the long term.
JR 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Who gives a shit what the outside world thinks of climbing?

A narrow view to take when the majority of the most important access and campaigning work the BMC/Climb Britain does relies on what the non-climbing, outside world, thinks.
Annabel Tall 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I take it everyone knows what branding agencies do when they get a brief like this? All go out on the lash, cobble something together then all take bets on how much they can get away with charging.
Here's an idea for free, let's rename the United Kingdom "The Kingdom" since we're not so united at the moment.
DTP 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Down with this sort of thing.
CragRat11 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I'm a self confessed font pedant I know but........

that's one of the ugliest fonts I've ever seen. What have they done to the C and the B? Bashed it with a brick?

I understand the re-brand (though I hate the steady creep away from trad and into plastic filled hangars and Olympic dreams) but they could at least make it pretty.
Robert Durran 26 Jul 2016
In reply to JR:

> A narrow view to take

See my reply above. Might expand on it later.
Bootrock 26 Jul 2016
In reply to bouldery bits:

Royal Meteorological Society are rebranding themselves to Clouds Britain.

Annabel Tall 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
to drive a wedge into the membership argument (Google the BMC membership survey for the numbers) 1/8 of the membership being under 25 is surprisingly high. most organisations struggle to get under 25's to join anything. I suspect that if anything changing the name from Mountaineering (adventurous) to Climb (thinking indoor athletic pursuits) will put youngsters off. Can only conclude that the driving motivation is something else. No coincidence that the agency was involved in Olympic branding...? If that's where the BMC goes (indoor, sport) then I can see a market for a new organisation to represent Mountaineering in Britain.
Michael Gordon 26 Jul 2016
In reply to ByEek:

> We should. After all, it is some outside climbing who feel we are reckless, putting our lives at risk and those of our rescuers.
>

So how does a name change alter this?

Bellie 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

and why shouldn't they? They have found they aren't getting down enough with the youth, and need to appeal more to that sector. In readiness, to weather chasing becoming an olympic sport we need GB to be at the forefront, so the Society's thrust should be in engaging young weather bods into being meteorological medalists.

Fck-et the gravitas and the history of the name. Its just not cutting it these days is it. Oh and here's a shIt font for you to use while you are at it!

;)
1
duchessofmalfi 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Bellie:

Oh dear - I've just seen the logo - what a crock of shit. The politest thing I can think to say about it is is that it looks like it was cut out by a sleep 4 year old wielding a pair of blunt safety scissors. What the hell did this folly cost?
Mowglee 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Some public spirited individual has set up a petition for the masses to voice their disapproval. No idea if the name change is now set in stone, but more signatures is surely better than fewer.

https://www.change.org/p/british-mountaineering-council-stop-the-bmc-from-changing-its-name?recruite...

JR_NL 26 Jul 2016
In reply to captain paranoia:

> If your 'NL' user name means you're from the Netherlands, maybe you were subconsciously influenced by the use of the Netherlands flag for the little mountain...

Hahahaha nice one, I didn't even notice it!
JR 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> See my reply above. Might expand on it later.
> I asked who gave a shit what they think about climbing, not climbers. Not quite the same thing.

I saw it. Not quite the same thing, but certainly not exclusive of each other.
pebbles 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Annabel Tall:
> Here's an idea for free, let's rename the United Kingdom "The Kingdom" since we're not so united at the moment

Hmm. I'v been away for nine months thinking about this, and I'v got some findings to report back . Is there a new name that could clearly convey all our core beliefs?

British people are all..British! British is the one word that bids all British people together. And the word Britain sounds a bit like Team Britain, which reminds me of the Olympics.

"British Britain!" The new name for the new rebranded Britain! Can we have a new shit font for it too please?


The Wild Scallion 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

My goodness I thought this was a joke at first .
I checked the calendar thinking I had teleported back to April the first.
What a truly sh!t font and logo.

Dreadful


JLS 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I can't see why climbers are taking such an interest in the BMC renaming themselves.
Ok, Heal Britain might have been a more appropriate name for a doctor's union but I know a few doctors that are into climbing.
Doug Blane 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

They could simply change Council to '& Climbing' to form 'British Mountaineering & Climbing', I.e. keep BMC.

1
Bootrock 26 Jul 2016
In reply to JLS:

Royal Society of Chemistry is getting rebranded to Bang! Britain.

It's snappy. It's hip. It's young. It's trendy. It's down with the kids.
JayPee630 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Doug Blane:

What did you charge for that idea?
Lurking Dave 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I think that is a good thing. Yes, I have read the posts on this thread and a couple of others.

Why you might ask. Because most of us (most climbers) don't participate in mountaineering, yes some of us have climbed peaks in the greater ranges etc. but the average punter at Stanage is not using their Sunday afternoon bimble in preparation for a 7000m peak in Pakistan.

More to the point, to the general public mountaineering is an obscure activity. When you discuss with work colleagues what you do as a pass time... how would they describe it? "oh, Bob, yeah he likes going climbing. Seems to keep him fit and he does it in all weathers..."

Get over it. Yes, it is a change in name. It could be a good thing...
Cheers
LD
22
broc 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I'm not necessarily against change, but 9 months to come up with 'Climb Britain' and that logo? Seriously?! I can't even begin to imagine the money that was likely spent on this.

Thankfully I cancelled my subs to the BMC several years ago as didn't feel I was getting much in return in for my cash, other than a pile of glossy adverts landing on my doormat every 3 months.
JayPee630 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
I imagine some the BMC Exec are watching this thread with a mix of sneering, embarrasment, and worry that they've misjudged this badly.

Any of them got the courage to come on here and answer questions, or have they taken a policy of no comment hoping it'll all blow over?

If anyone from the company has a look at this... you should be ashamed, you're a bunch of neo-liberal, bullshit spouting money grabbers. You belong in an episode of The Office, not real life. Reminds me of that Bill Hicks sketch... "Anyone here work in advertising? (A few hands go up.) Kill yourself. (Audience titters.) No really, kill yourself. (Awkward silence.)."

And the logo design is shit. It's ugly, cliched, gives a feeling of petty nationalism, and will look dated in a very short time.
Post edited at 10:04
planetmarshall 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

UKC to be renamed "Troll Britain".
Misha 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

This is a response from the Midlands Area Facebook page. For context, the Midlands Area meeting was about 10 days before the national council meeting. By that stage the new name and logo or at least a shortlist would surely have been known and, as noted above, the new website had already been registered.

"It was mentioned in a short briefing of what was going on at head office. At the time the new name was not known."

This makes a mockery of the democratic process. The reps weren't told the full story and didn't think to ask. So the area meeting was unable to instruct the reps how to vote. In fact this wasn't even on the Area meeting agenda as a separate item.
Bootrock 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Bellie:
The problem with the whole "not getting enough youths in" isn't the name of a company, but the attitude of the kids. They don't care, the don't want to, or they are too lazy these days to get out and find something. And the ones that do care, are already members.

You aren't suddenly going to get kids throwing themselves at climb Britain. OH MY GOD ITS SUCH A HIP NAME THEY MUST BE SICK BRAH.

Instead of wasting money, time and effort on rebranding, they could put that money time and effort into doing more youth aimed events. If that's what they want. Did they even consult the younger members? Any younger ones care to weigh in?

It's insulting, dumbing down, pointless and a waste of time money and effort. Come on, b-focused and thinkfarm? What a joke. And they designed the awful Olympics 2012 design that was shit and looked like a kneeling Lisa Simpson performing a sex act. People got paid a lot of money to come up with this dogs abortion.


And let's face it, it's got bugger all to do with introducing new young people, it's all about brown envelopes and politics and bureaucracy and people making names for themselves.

At least Mountaineering Scotland is marginally better than Climb Britain. and to not even inform or ask the members is a tad insulting.

I have been toying with the idea of joining, but I won't bother now.

And why do they have a discount for being unemployed? What's that all about?
K
Post edited at 10:11
2
toad 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
I am dissapointed that if the BMC want to mention ukc discussion in their pr, then they really should have engaged in the discussion- there are a number of valid points that have been raised here, on Facebook and on their own website, but no engagement with the rank and file. That's really quite shocking, and suggests they know it's not been managed professionally or (and I don't think it's too strong a term) ethically

Bootrock 26 Jul 2016
In reply to planetmarshall:

They missed a trick, it should be

CLIMB! Britain.

Punchy. Trendy. Attention grabbing.


B-fooled and thinkfart can have that for free.
Graeme Hammond 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Misha:
Dave Turnbull turned up at the Peak Area (8-6-2026) Meeting to tell us about the change too but would not divulge the actual name for various reasons.
Post edited at 10:20
2
MooseMouse 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Misha:
National council representatives must have been asleep on the job.

The executive should have informed the national council before the process even started.
This is the job of the national council reps on the executive committee. Clearly they have let the membership down badly.

The national council should have questioned if the membership wanted a name change and stopped the initiative in its tracks.

The sports council may have paid the consultant fees, but many hours of BMC officer time would have been wasted in meetings, 'focus groups' and other frippery. This is time that could have been spend directly serving the clear priority of the membership, namely access.
Post edited at 10:22
pec 26 Jul 2016
In reply to olliebristol:

> Bouldering Mountaineering Climbing, what was wrong with the BMC?

> Also, the new one missed climb trees. >

And don't forget "climb up your own arse".

Bellie 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I'm a designer of 25 years so I don't like to dismiss re brands. I've seen plenty that have been given the thumbs down on launch go on to become loved in the long run. Not so long back The Ramblers rebrand got panned. I used the 'extensive' branding on some walkers literature and it worked really well.

However in the current climate - I can't help thinking that they might have been persuaded to go along with the Verb-Noun thinking and become Walk Britain.

Thats my beef really, Logos change and evolve - so the visual branding is not my issue. Changing your name is quite a different proposition, and given the history of the organisation, to change to a snappy throw away moniker - just jars with me. It just smacks of trying to be trendy at the behest of the marketing people - who seem to have thrown the lot in the bin.

I accept that the legal name for the organisation stays the same. I wonder - if the funding goes, will they think sod that and change back - or are they really onboard with it all. I can't help thinking there were better design and marketing solutions at their disposal to help them reach out to the masses than a rename.


myrddinmuse 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> The problem with the whole "not getting enough youths in" isn't the name of a company, but the attitude of the kids. They don't care, the don't want to, or they are too lazy these days to get out and find something. And the ones that do care, are already members.

Speaking as a student, and a member, I object to this characterization of my generation, but agree that a name change will do precisely jack shit to encourage people to join.

If you climb indoors only, and don't engage in competition, in my opinion there is much less that the BMC can do for you than if you're interested in the outdoors, and would benefit from access work/trad/mountaineering help etc. I think that the best way to get my generation involved is to emphasize the world "outside" and the benefits that joining the BMC can bring in that area.

As a welshman I don't think I will ever buy a t-shirt with the 'butcher's apron' flag on it either ;) I wonder what the wider implications of the "climb Cymru" split will be, as well.
Al Randall 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I prefer BMC. I wonder, does this name change have anything to do with the bid to include climbing in the Olympics?

Al
Bootrock 26 Jul 2016
In reply to myrddinmuse:

> Speaking as a student, and a member, I object to this characterization of my generation, but agree that a name change will do precisely jack shit to encourage people to join.


But you just proved it, you care, and you're a member.
It maybe a generalisation but generalisations are there for a reason.

If there's a big push for indoor/Olympic climbing, why not make a seperare club/union governing body that focuses solely on that?

myrddinmuse 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

I don't think it's an old young divide though.. I know plenty of older climbers who don't join either because they're purely plastic enthusiasts. My point is that more should be done to join the 'two worlds' if you want more members. It's a step in the wrong direction.

It would be interesting to have a separate club, I guess.
Kerm 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Sounds a bit UKIP to me.
Adam_42 26 Jul 2016
In reply to myrddinmuse:
Well said. Though having passed 25, I can probably no longer count myself as "young". As I said in my previous comment, I actually think the BMC do a very good job at engaging with younger people. I imagine youth membership may look lower than it actually is because a lot of young people are members of affiliated clubs (like University clubs) and therefore don't need to join the BMC independently to have access to its benefits. I know I joined as an individual only after leaving university.

I'll also add that an ageing population may well skew the statistics to make it look like younger people are proportionally less likely to be members. Let's also add to that the fact that young people are less inclined to join formal organisations than their elders and it may well be that youth engagement in the BMC is actually pretty darn good. I could be wrong though, but we need more statistics than "1/8 of our membership are 18-25" to draw a fair conclusion either way.

My personal opinion is that the BMC have worked hard to address the fact that they need to appeal to young people and have done a lot to ensure that they are perceived extremely well by young people. The effort that they've put into making that the case will actually be damaged by a name change because you have to re-educate your audience and earn back the standing you established under a different name. It still might be worth the change overall if this does lead to an uptick in interest, but I'd really like to see some demonstration that the BMC have taken a balanced view on this rather than the "party line" that they're trotting out. That for me is what makes the difference between a representative body that engages with its community and a bog-standard company/organisation.
Post edited at 10:52
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

At my desk now and putting some thoughts together, will report back in a while.

Dave
myrddinmuse 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Thanks, Dave.
philhilo 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Ian Carey:

Agree, but the armchair warriors on here won't ever turn up to a meeting so not much risk of them voicing their opinions beyond the internet. If they had gone to the meetings then they would have been aware that a name change was being proposed. Those that did turn up to their local meetings like I did were aware. Its a name change folks, not the end of the world! I am not a mountaineer, but I am a climber, I guess all the shouty folks are mountaineers?
19
Blank 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Admit to being very surprised and confused by the rebrand when I first heard about it. Have slept on it before commenting, but in the cold light of day I'm still struggling with it.

First up- I'm a member of MCofS and grateful that the name change north of the border is a lot less drastic, and made with consultation of the membership. I even vaguely recall being asked. I also think that the BMC could have taken a leaf out of the MCofS' book: Climb Scotland was launched last year as a seperate entity to attract young people to climbing as a sport. At the time this seemed like a really positive move by MCofS and still does. A comp/youth wing called Climb England/Climb Cymru would make much more sense.

Personally I really don't like the new name- Climb Britain is so faceless. It's amazing how a trusted institution that always felt to me like an old friend can suddenly seem so alien, so corporate, simply with a new logo and a new name. Hopefully over the coming months we will see that it hasn't changed- but if it hasn't, why the rebrand? If there must be a rebrand because the word Council is so dated- there have been some great suggestions on here and the membership could/should have been consulted. British Mountaineering Club, and British Mountaineering and Climbing (both keeping BMC), could have been popular choices.

You could argue its none of my business as I've not been a BMC member since I moved north of the border but the BMC was set up to represent all hill-goers, members or no, and represent us for issues such as access etc. I still head south from time to time and enjoy hard won access rights when I do.

The BMC should definitely be attracting new participants to climbing and hillwalking. I find it odd that older members feel alienated by this. In a world where obesity is the leading cause of ill health and young people are increasingly disconnected from their environment the BMC has a positive role to play for the good of wider society as well as existing members.

But, that font? Really? Unfortunately with that font attached it's hard to take anything else that has come out of the 9 month marketing study seriously.

Finally, I feel sad that this off key rebranding decision is being used to bash the BMC unfairly. Yes its become a large and ultimately glossy organisation, and yes it does spend quite a bit of time promoting itself, but please, get with the 21st century, this is what large membership organisations with a campaigning remit have to do to get funding to do all the great things that they do- fight for access rights, support grass roots participation, improve safety, and yes, even promote equity (can't believe someone dissed this above). A few years ago I attended a Disability Symposium which was a total game changer for me in my work as a freelance ML. I received training not available anywhere else because I freelance which has given me the confidence to work with people with disabilities. I'm extremely grateful to the BMC for giving me this opportunity.

Finally finally finally... rebranding U turns happen, and the BMC would do well to look at this as an option right now. It would be a great way to show their members that they do listen after all....


fred99 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

The first thing I did was check the date.
Second I re-read.
Then I realised that Sport Climbing into the Olympics had arrived.
We no longer control what I thought was OUR organisation, but control has effectively been passed, by those in charge of our finances, into the hands of a government quango.
Stand by for individual affiliation fees to be increased, without our agreement, so that the small number of indoor competition climbers, and their large number of hangers-on, can become full time professionals.
Meanwhile the (former) BMC is evidently no longer interested in anything to do with Mountaineering.
After all, if the MCofS can be "Mountaineering Scotland" then why not the BMC "Mountaineering Britain".
1
jon 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> You cannot possibly be serious.

I think Dave, that they've just realised that BMC is the British Motor corporation and that they'd rather steer clear of any confusion in the future.
Bootrock 26 Jul 2016
In reply to myrddinmuse:


Hang on, has any member had any interaction with BMC about this?

They keep banging on about focus groups, surely, the BMC members are the focus group?
spiritwalker 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Well I hope you have a good long hard think about the history and cachet behind the name British Mountaineering Council and what that means here and overseas, and also about democratic process to the membership. I joined the BMC because it represented the sober, concerned, and sensible face of my sport, and had the air of authority and gravitas that befitted its age and origin, whilst being concerned with the issues of the moment, in particular access and safety. The message you have sent with this ill-thought out move is that you do not care about the members, you do not care about your heritage, you do not care about being seen as a senior and august body that can deal with landowners and government, and you do not care about how many members you will lose as a result of the cavalier attitude here displayed.
2
MGRT 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I have cancelled my Direct Debit
3
Steve Woollard 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

A petition against the name change can be found here -

https://www.change.org/p/british-mountaineering-council-stop-the-bmc-from-changing-its-name
Droyd 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Just to point out in response to some of the replies in this thread: I'm part of the mythical 'under 25 and frequently climb indoors' demographic (although that's more to do with the weather in this country than anything else), and the whole thing strikes me as wank too, as I'm sure it does anyone else who isn't completely f*cking tasteless. Older BMC members might be decrying this rebranding as a transparent attempt to attract younger members, and it most likely is, but that doesn't mean that people born this side of 1991 will actually be taken in by this kind of shit. If anything, we're a good bit more cynical and jaded when it comes to focus-grouped crap aimed at youth markets (seeing as we're actually the targets of it) than the hex-wielding bumblies.
whenry 26 Jul 2016
In reply to philhilo:
> If they had gone to the meetings then they would have been aware that a name change was being proposed. Those that did turn up to their local meetings like I did were aware.

The last SW area meeting was in Cornwall, 200 miles from my house. It's rather far to go for something that is normally routine business, and when I checked the agenda, no mention was made of any name change or anything else unusual.

Edit: But for the record, I strongly disapprove of the name change. For promoting climbing in the Olympics or indoor climbing, fine, but it makes an organisation with a long and venerable history of supporting access and other important issues sound like a joke. It completely lacks the gravitas that the British Mountaineering Council had. Heads should roll.
Post edited at 11:24
climbwhenready 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Jonathan Spooner:

Can you maybe post that as a new thread to give it the visibility it deserves?
tom_in_edinburgh 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
These days it seems like pretty much every government agency or organisation dependent on government is doing the 'X UK' thing. So as an organisation that gets 30% of its budget from Sport England BMC is just swimming with the tide. Can't see any reason to hire two agencies for 9 months to suggest something so blatantly obvious though.

I think MCofS had a better idea with Mountaineering Scotland as the parent organisation and Climb Scotland as a sub-organisation focused on youth and comps. This seems like a better solution organisationally and visually than calling the whole thing Climb Scotland. Organisationally, there's enough separation between mainly older hillwalkers and trad climbers and mainly younger indoor climbers so they can do their own thing without interference and without splitting the organisation entirely. Visually, the indoor climbers can get a bright, sporty, logo that appeals to government funders and young people and looks fine next to content about indoor climbing and the mountaineering guys can get a more muted and traditional branding that looks good next to pictures of landscape.
Post edited at 11:29
Davie.G 26 Jul 2016
In reply to JayPee630:

Come join mcofs, can you imagine booking an alpine hit and when they ask you if you are a member of any professional body or club, you say YES, I'm a member of climb Britain. I wonder what they would think💩💩💩💩
Steve Crowe 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH

I would much prefer British Mountaineers & Climbers (BMC).
MooseMouse 26 Jul 2016
In reply to climbwhenready:
> Can you maybe post that as a new thread to give it the visibility it deserves?

The BMC can legitimately just ignore that petition, and rightly so. There is no way to be sure that the respondents are BMC members.

The BMC cannot ignore members if the strength of feeling is expressed viathe elected national council representatives, or through a vote at a General Meeting.

I posted about it here;

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=646470

If you want to stop the name change, the effective way to do that is through your national council representative, or a vote at a General Meeting.
Post edited at 11:39
herbe_rouge 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Steve Woollard:

> A petition against the name change can be found here -



signed
brianjcooper 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Like others, I too had to check the date. We are informed, without canvassing, that the name is to keep up with the times. More likely to make the BMC more marketable, and fund attractive in readiness for the 2020 Olympics?

'Climb Britain' sounds like another TV reality game show, with an instantly forgettable name.
toad 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
I'm sorry to be negative, but isn't it a bit late to be doing that now? The time to present your thoughts was before this farcical turn of events rather than post hoc justification
Bootrock 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Davie.G:

MCoS?

You mean Mountaineer Scotland. Marginally better than the shite Climb Britain.
JHiley 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

UPDATE:

I am told that the huge steel dome that was secretly constructed over Ken Wilson's final resting place in preparation for this announcement has begun to heat up alarmingly.

Teams of men are now working day and night pouring liquid nitrogen onto the structure while many soldiers from the encircling battalions have abandoned their tanks and fled into the hills.
Bryn_F 26 Jul 2016
In reply to philhilo:

Perhaps some of us don't have the luxury of working near home, and spend a great deal of our time many hundreds of miles away.
subtle 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

> Today the BMC has announced a change of name to 'Climb Britain'

As there are no mountains in Britain surely the new name is more prescriptive of what we do here, which is climb things

29
JayPee630 26 Jul 2016
In reply to subtle:

That's quite possibly the most stupid argument for the change yet.
2
ericinbristol 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

The BMC/CB website says
"Why weren’t members part of the decision-making process?
Major decisions are made by the Executive Committee (the Board of Directors) and the National Council, both comprised of elected volunteers. The rebranding proposal was unanimously agreed by the BMC Board of Directors on 18 May. It then went to the National Council meeting on 18 June, where it was agreed 19 for, 1 abstention (due to being a new member) and 0 against."
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/climb-britain-the-facts

This is gutless corporate-speak for '(a) It's none of their business, and (b) they would have given us the wrong answer'.

The website also says "Since we announced the start of our journey to Climb Britain, we’ve had some great responses on UKclimbing, Twitter and Facebook. Some positive, some negative – and all passionate."

This is more gutless corporate-speak for "Since we announced the end of our journey into mindless corporate re-branding, we've been slagged rotten - the feedback has been overwhelmingly negative but we will follow the rebranding guidelines and be nicey-nice while digging our heels in until our members give up".







1
toad 26 Jul 2016
In reply to ericinbristol:

> The BMC/CB website says


> The website also says "Since we announced the start of our journey to Climb Britain, we’ve had some great responses on UKclimbing, Twitter and Facebook. Some positive, some negative – and all passionate."

>
Rather alarmingly, this was up on their website before this discussion got going, so at best that is remarkably disingenuous, and at worst....
1
JayPee630 26 Jul 2016
In reply to ericinbristol:

Indeed, I was actually shocked at the dishonesty and corporate bullshit in that answer and statement too. They almost are more telling than the name/logo change itself.

And what happened in the month between the Board of Directors voting on it, and the National Council?

Was it purposely kept quite? It seems impossible that such a huge change wouldn't have been talked about widely without it being hushed up purposely.
1
captain paranoia 26 Jul 2016
In reply to CragRat11:

> that's one of the ugliest fonts I've ever seen. What have they done to the C and the B? Bashed it with a brick?

Copied the new Channel 4 font.

https://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2015/september/channel-4-rebrands-with-help-from-jonathan-g...

Lazy graphic design, hopping on someone else's daft trend.
nutme 26 Jul 2016

I would really prefer them moving towards C.A.I. or FFCAM like and spending more time building shelters, marking paths and providing good cover for clients.

For a start they could have worked on a deal with continental mountaineers to provide discount in huts.
Post edited at 12:46
1
Simon Caldwell 26 Jul 2016
In reply to 3leggeddog:

> email you questions and concerns to the BMC, it is more likely to get a response

Do you reckon? I email them occasionally, generally about access or their broken website, and haven't had any reply to anything since 2012.
Jim Walton 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

This is a phenomenal PR Coup d'état by the BMC. They've never been talked about like this in decades. Most people just thought they made 'check your knot' signs for indoor climbing walls. In the same way that the BBC said that they would turn off 6Music and then the listening figures went up 5 times, this is what the BMC will be wanting. Mass outcry by the masses to the new name, then the name will revert back to the BMC. The Masses thinking they've bloodied the establishments nose whilst it's actually the other way round as for the cost of briefly changing a logo the BMC's name is all over the place. Publicity like that can't be bought!
2
Mowglee 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Has everyone who's opposed to this signed the petition? It might make it a bit easier for Dave Turnbull and the team to see the strength of feeling in terms of simple numbers.

https://www.change.org/p/british-mountaineering-council-stop-the-bmc-from-changing-its-name
Damo 26 Jul 2016
In reply to captain paranoia:

Has anyone seen the Facebook page? https://www.facebook.com/BritishMountaineeringCouncil/?fref=ts

Pretty much the same reaction as here.

With the addition that they've clearly nicked the SportsDirect.com colour scheme...
Simon Caldwell 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Lurking Dave:

> most of us (most climbers) don't participate in mountaineering

Most of us (BMC members) don't participate in climbing
wee jamie 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Maybe they've been offered a few quid from BMC bikes
Jim Walton 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Now that the BMC have our attention, I'm expecting a "Dead Cat" to be dropped on the table at any point within the next few days.

"For those outside of the Westminster playpen, the dead cat strategy is basically a massive, usually insulting diversion from a political party’s failings. So if your immigration targets are not met, scream something hideous about the migrant relative of your opponent. Everyone will clutch their pearls and bang on about that for the rest of the day and sometimes week. The fact that you cocked up on counter-terrorism or failed to do anything without u-turning will slip by, while commentators across the land discuss Jeremy Corbyn’s tweed jacket and crooked tie."
Marek 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Lurking Dave:

> Why you might ask. Because most of us (most climbers) don't participate in mountaineering, ...

For me 'mountaineering' just means 'doing stuff in the mountains' and doesn't necessarily require himalayan summits or alpine epics (although I've some of those). I guess it might exclude urban/tree/indoor climbing but 'mountaineering' still exemplifies all that 'messing around on steep(ish) terrain' stuff that seems (was?) the remit of the BMC.
1
Simon Caldwell 26 Jul 2016
In reply to philhilo:

> the armchair warriors on here won't ever turn up to a meeting so not much risk of them voicing their opinions beyond the internet

I suspect that some of them might turn up to the next AGM!

I don't go to local meetings as they always hold them too far away. If there had been an agenda item about this then I'd probably have made the effort (and no a vague mention of "Commercial Development & Branding" doesn't count.

The minutes have yet to be published (after 6 weeks) so I don't know what was actually said.

fire_munki 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

I notice most of the anonymous comments on the BMC news page are awaiting moderation, strangely the most recent one is positive but still anonymous comment has been approved, but not the 3 oldest ones.

One of which is mine, and is not rude/abusive/swearing or anything else other than an opinion, so nothing that would require moderation really.
1
Lusk 26 Jul 2016
In reply to JHiley:

Love it!


Newsflash: F.& R.C.C. announce re-brand to 'Walk Fells'.
Grumbling noises have been reported in the vicinity of Wainwright's grave.
mattrm 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

It's pretty naff really. Looks crappy. They've not consulted the members. What a waste of money. I feel that there needs to be a split between the competition only 'climbing' arm of the sport and actual climbing. We'd be better off with the BMC staying the BMC and having a 'Indoor Competition Climbing Assoc' which can deal with all the BS that the Olympics brings in. I was never happy with Climbing being in the Olympics and this is the reason why.
2
toad 26 Jul 2016
In reply to fire_munki:
Yea, mine too - I only didn't log in because I couldn't get my password ( set up when I bought insurance) to work
captain paranoia 26 Jul 2016
lostcat 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Has anybody said this yet but the logo bares similarities to the London Olympics logo.
beth 26 Jul 2016
In reply to ericinbristol:

> This is more gutless corporate-speak for "Since we announced the end of our journey into mindless corporate re-branding, we've been slagged rotten - the feedback has been overwhelmingly negative but we will follow the rebranding guidelines and be nicey-nice while digging our heels in until our members give up".

...and leave.
Misha 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Misha:

More info on local area meeting discussions - based on what I've gathered from local area reps. Yorkshire had a discussion and apparently consensus was in favour but the sepecifix name and branding weren't discussed - apparently due to concern over domain name pinching (but in reality as noted above the domain name was registered back in March anyway!). Lakes did not discuss.
dpmUK 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Misha:

> More info on local area meeting discussions - based on what I've gathered from local area reps. Yorkshire had a discussion and apparently consensus was in favour but the sepecifix name and branding weren't discussed - apparently due to concern over domain name pinching (but in reality as noted above the domain name was registered back in March anyway!). Lakes did not discuss.

There is of course the problem, that at least from my experience, people who attend area meetings are hardly representative of the membership as a whole.
1
Misha 26 Jul 2016
In reply to philhilo:

It wasn't on the agenda for the meeting, otherwise I would have gone. Nor were the precise name and logo demonstrated from what I gather, so it could only be an initial discussion and no meaningful yes/no decision could be taken to instruct our reps how the area meeting actually wanted them to vote. A total failure of the democratic process which is meant to govern the BMC.
Mike Raine 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Has anybody said 'Climb, when you're ready Britain' yet!!
MooseMouse 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Misha and dpmUK:

Agree with both your points. A consultation on a big issue like a name change should have been notified from the outset. It should have been on the agenda of the local area meetings 9 months ago, allowing those with concerns about the name (or the requirement to even change) to make a special effort to make their voice heard.

If the name changed idea had been notified at area meetings from the outset, then those who are disgruntled retrospectively would not have had a leg to stand on with any complaint. Should have been at the meeting, or at least got in touch with the area national council rep.

As it stands now, since the initiative was not notified, I don't think the Executive have a leg to stand on.

They do not have a mandate for the change.

The only reason for the failure to notify via the area meetings are the aforementioned olympic, sports council shenanigans.

The executive must have believed that any name change would not have been accepted by the membership and so they decided on a path of subterfuge and concealment.

The fact that statements were prepared in advance says it all, and frankly, it stinks.
1
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

All
…very impressive level of response, many thanks to everyone who has commented. Here are some personal perspectives and detail about the process to date:

Midway through last year, I was at a seminar in London when one of the speakers mentioned funding might be available to help sports organisations develop their commercial and sponsorship potential. The BMC has always struggled to attract sponsorship income on any kind of scale (we end up funding the bulk of our work ourselves), so I followed this up and eventually we were given the services of a reputable consultancy firm to help us work up ideas. This work looked at things like our membership structure and benefits package, travel insurance and sponsorship options in great detail and has been extremely useful. At the start of the process we secured some addition money (around £25k) for a branding agency to take a detailed look at how people perceive the BMC and how we might be able to improve our image to connect with new people and stay relevant in the modern age.

At the outset my expectation was that we’d probably end up with a recommendation to adopt a new BMC logo and some detailed brand guidelines about how to position ourselves. There was no specific brief to come up with new name for the BMC - it just evolved that way because the consultants came up with idea we felt had traction. For years we’ve pondered about the suitability of ‘Mountaineering Council’ in our name, but we’ve never been able to come up with an acceptable alternative. BMC as an acronym is OK if you know the BMC, but for new people it’s not obvious who we are or what we do. ‘British Climbing’ has been bandied about over the years, but the word ‘Climbing’ is different to ‘Climb’ and would never be acceptable to our hill walking members. ‘Climb’ on the other hand does work in the context of ‘climb hills, climb mountains, climb rocks etc’. Other random options over the years have included British Mountaineering, British Mountain Sports or British Mountaineering and Climbing. None of which are hugely better than British Mountaineering Council / BMC.

So, Climb Britain was thought up as a concept in March this year and we took it from there: initially sounding people out internally to see if they liked it and felt it worth taking forward. This involved discussion amongst the BMC’s directors (all unpaid elected volunteers) and past Presidents (including the likes of Dave Musgrove, Rab Carrington and Chris Bonington) and the MCofS (who were supportive). There were some reservations, of course, but the overwhelming reaction was that the time (and the name) was right, so on 18 May the directors unanimously agreed to take the new name forward to the BMC National Council meeting, which took place at Plas y Brenin on 18 June. An explanation for those who aren’t aware: National Council comprises two elected representatives from each of the BMC’s ten ‘Areas’ (London, Peak, Lakes, Cymru / Wales North, Cymru / Wales South etc.), the directors, and all of our Specialist Committee chairs (Clubs Committee, Access Management Group, Huts Advisory Group, Training & Youth Committee, Technical Committee etc.) as observers. National Council is the BMC’s policy-making body and the role of the Area reps is to feed in the views of their Area Meetings and take issues from National Council back to Areas for consideration when they see fit. National Council is made up of committed volunteers who give up their time (at least four weekends per years) to participate in quarterly meetings and the AGM. It comprises grassroots enthusiasts and is typically very thoughtful and cautious in approach.

So, on 18 June I presented the Climb Britain concept to a well-attended gathering, fully expecting it to raise eyebrows and to be knocked back to the September meeting following a period of wider discussion. National Council was aware the branding project had been going on and as it turned out the response was incredibly enthusiastic and positive. The Area representatives (your representatives) liked the concept and the name Climb Britain. They felt the time was right, that the BMC had to move with the times and they voted 19 for, 1 abstention, 0 against in favour of adopting the new identity.

For me personally, Climb Britain wasn’t love at first sight, it’s been a ‘grower’ though. My initial impression (back in March) was it sounded a bit awkward and unusual, more like a campaign than a national body, a bit radical for the BMC. But I think the logo works well: it’s distinctive, builds on previous BMC logos and, when seen in conjunction with the ‘climb hills, climb mountains, etc’ strapline, presents a strong and clear message. Give it time, I say.

In response to some of the other points on this thread and elsewhere:

1. 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. Without evolving, our membership age profile would have increased and at some stage – not now, but perhaps not far off – we would have ceased to become relevant in the new landscape.

2. What did the consultancy work involve? Discussion with a sample of BMC volunteers, Area reps, climbing wall managers, young and older climbers, hill walkers and others. Meetings with members of the BMC Women’s Development Group, our Hill Walking Development Group and staff, and visits to climbing walls.

3. What exactly is ‘Climb Britain’? It’s a new public identity, a new way of presenting what we do and what we stand for. Our formal name (Companies House, Memorandum & Articles of Association) will remain the British Mountaineering Council (BMC), and ‘BMC’ will still be used in aspects of our media and membership literature. The BMC’s core work for climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers will continue as usual under the Climb Britain banner; it will be business as usual.

4. Decision making / consultation. I’ve explained above how we arrived at Climb Britain. The BMC has an effective democratic structure and we used this in reaching the decision. Complex or commercially sensitive issues can be extremely difficult or impossible to agree via widespread membership consultation and there are times when we rely on our (your) elected Area reps to make judgement calls on big issues. That’s why they’re there, that why they give up their time to be involved.

5. Sport England and the Olympics. The consultancy work was paid for by Sport England so members’ money was not used on the rebrand. There were no strings attached (if we didn’t like what the consultants came up with then we weren’t obliged to accept it) and without this kind of help we wouldn’t normally be able to afford this level of professional advice. Finally, regarding the Sports Councils, Sport England is not involved with the Olympics, UK Sport is. The BMC gets financial support from Sport England, not UK Sport. Sport England funds projects like ours to encourage organisations to increase their commercial (and external sponsorship) income and thus reduce their dependency on Government funding. This whole process started well before the 2020 Olympics became such a realistic prospect; it’s a complete coincidence that the two things have come about at the same time.

Phew.

Dave
53
Xharlie 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

I'll read your reply with interest and with an open mind but I do have to ask why you're putting "thoughts" together AFTER announcing the name change?

It took nine months, according to your own press releases. Why wasn't the membership informed that the process was even underway? Why weren't potential names sent out in newsletters? Why weren't ANY of the BMC members here asked their opinions? Why the secrecy?

This is 2016. Mass communication is dead easy. Even mass involvement and crowd-sourced decision making is dead easy, although "Climby McClimb Face" isn't a good name for you.

We have to extrapolate from the data at hand: none of the active UKC users who have piled onto this thread in droves knew anything about this and so we can conclude that either NO members were involved or those few who were were instructed not to mention it outside of the echo chamber in which the idea was given birth. Rumours thrive in "club"-like environments and so that "instruction" must have been quite forceful!

This is not the behaviour of a democratic institution or association or council or club - they are transparent and open, excepting cases where it would be indiscreet to be so and this isn't one of those cases.

This is the behaviour of a listed company that "announces" proudly to its staff that it has just sold itself to a multi-national conglomerate for a relative pittance and that thousands will now be made redundant but the CEO is buying a cool new yacht. This is the behaviour of a business that suddenly announces it will be relocating (cost saving measures) and you can either commute for an extra hour or find a new place of work.

Please, at the very least, include an acknowledgement, an admission of guilt, in this regard: this was NOT a democratic decision. An apology would go nicely with that.
4
Misha 26 Jul 2016
In reply to dpmUK:

This is also true but it's the way it's been set up and is about as democratic as it can get.
6
dpmUK 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Misha:
I disagree that it's about as democratic as it can get as I think area meetings have several, fixable problems. That said any area meeting idea is likely to suffer similar issues. However given they obviously don't represent the membership as a whole I would have like to seen wider, visible, consultation with the members (including the actual name) for such an important issue as this. It's one thing that the more day-to-day decisions are done through area meets - there practicality rules out wider membership consultation - but on a bigger issue such as this wilder consultation is, in my opinion, a must.
Post edited at 14:42
dpmUK 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Thank you for the considered reply. However it seems to have entirely focused on the past and not the way forward. It seems clear to me that, on this issue, the BMC (and it's various organs, such as area reps) have badly misjudged the views of the wider membership. So what I'm interest is in what the BMC plans to do now. From the strength of feeling a EGM seems a possibility if things stay as they are and I'm sure no one really wants that.
1
JayPee630 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
How on earth do you explain the complete mismatch between what you all voted for, and the overwhelming negative response on here and other social media?

What is going on? Are you all so out of touch with wider opinions this is a surprise to you? Did you really not get any negative feedback on this change? It just seems bonkers. A bit of griping always comes with change, but this is a complete tidal wave of anger - both on the name/logo, but the process too.

Did you not think AT ALL that it might be good to at least consult with the membership? Did that *really* not enter your head at any point? And if it did, why did you then not do so?

The only answers that I can see to that are:

(1) It never occurred to you.
(2) It did occur to you and you (and others) decided not to.

The only conclusion I can see is that if it was (1) you are not fit for your job, and if it was (2) then you had some manipulative reasoning for not doing so.

If I am wrong can you explain what the alternative thinking and reasoning was please?
Post edited at 14:40
6
toad 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
So you now know there is considerable resistance from the membership. Does this mean you will consider wider consultation without pressing on with the rebrand? One of the key skills in mountaineering is knowing when to turn back. Would it be pushing it to say that the senior elements of the BMC have summit fever? Maybe now is the time to listen to advice from your guide. The summit will still be there tomorrow.

Ps. "Think Farm"? Surely that should have set your alarm bells ringing!
Post edited at 14:35
2
Xharlie 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Ok. Reply read. It doesn't really add anything new to the discussion.

Particularly, as much as you declare the process to be democratic, it does not explain why the membership were not notified and why the decision never appeared on the Agendas of local meetings.

Also, with regard to costs, who is paying for the rebranded stuff that now needs to be bought? Consultancy charges are only a small fraction of the cost of a re-branding.

There was a "right" way to do this. This did not need to play out this way.
1
Adam_42 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Hi Dave,

Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed reply, it is very much appreciated.

I'm happy that you've been able to clarify a number of points, but if you wouldn't mind I'd like to ask you for just one further clarification. I appreciate that we may well be taking up a lot of your time, but the only real issue I have in what you've written is that you've used the very nebulous phrase " the BMC had to modernise and change". I completely agree and as I've written in this thread, I think that you guys have done a fantastic job of doing so over the past decade or more. You've reintroduced the BMC to a whole new generation of climbers in a way that holds true to its heritage and values while still recognising the changing nature of the sport. What I do not understand, and what I suspect many others won't, is why a name change was a necessary part of "modernisation". If there's any detail you could provide on this point, I'd greatly appreciate it, but understand that you may not be able to spend all of your time relying to questions on here.

Thanks, Adam
Misha 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
Thanks for the explanation. You say it was democratic. In fact local Area meetings either didn't discuss it or discussed it in only general terms - the exact name and logo weren't revealed. So the national council reps couldn't effectively represent members' views - which are overwhelmingly negative, as this thread and discussions on your own website and FB page show. This is a fundamental failure of the democratic governance of the BMC. The proposal now needs to go back to the local Area meetings to be voted on and the Area reps then need to vote according in a rerun of the National Council vote, with the execs abstaining due to conflict of interest.

The consultants you hired didn't really understand (or try to understand) the feelings of most members, did they? The concern about creeping dominance of competitions at the expense of vital outdoor work in support of climbing, hill walking and mountaineering, as well as the increasingly undemocratic approach of the exec, is what underlies the opposition to the rebranding. Plus the fact that the new name and logo are naff!

Besides, I very much doubt that the new branding will attract more young people or sponsorship but we just don't known. The onus is on your exec to make it happen now. If it doesn't, this wil have been a total waste of time and money and your job will be on the line.
2
Misha 26 Jul 2016
In reply to dpmUK:

I don't disagree re wider consultation being a good idea.
spiritwalker 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

In no way was this a communicated, democratic decision!! I'm more often than not unable to attend local meetings due to work and location, and I'd heard NOTHING about this until the bombshell email from the BMC yesterday afternoon!! If I had known, I would certainly have been letting the area rep and anyone else I could get hold of know how badly this change would go down.

You say that "without evolving, our membership age profile would have increased", but by that logic there should be no BMC at all at this point, what with it being 72 years old. I joined the BMC when I was in my early twenties, and actually -aspired- to be a member of what I saw as a great organisation with a significant history; again by your logic, I should have been entirely put off joining. As someone else has pointed out, if you are into this sport, you will become aware of, and want to join, this organisation: The name is a significant part of what it is. Evolution within the organisation to embrace developments, yes certainly; look at the success of the BMC YouTube channel and so on, but not evolution that renders the goodwill and kudos of the organisation as a whole null and void, as this move has.

You can dress this up all you like, but the message you are getting from the members is very clear; you didn't engage, you didn't consult, and it is far from wanted or respected as a change.
1
TobyA 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Marek:

> For me 'mountaineering' just means 'doing stuff in the mountains' and doesn't necessarily require himalayan summits or alpine epics (although I've some of those).

This seems like semantics, because "climb" is just as vague. Actually, thinking about it, "climb" is vaguer - those of us who like cycling have listened to TdF commentators banging on about stages being for, or not for, "the climbers" and I don't think anyone expects Quintana to be wearing a harness. If you say I'm off to climb a hill, most people take that to mean you will be walking up hill.

I've tried really hard to get more worked up about this, but really can't see why it matters hugely. :-/
8
MooseMouse 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
Something stinks about the way in which this was done,

The pre-prepared statements prove that you were expecting trouble from the membership before you released your statement;

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/climb-britain-the-facts

Yet neither, you, nor seemingly the majority of the national council reps, took the simple steps required to inform the membership during the preceding 9 months.

Given the reach of modern social media, this is utterly contemptuous and I think Xharlie has hit the nail on the head.

I have never seen such bad feeling toward the BMC.

If you really feel it is necessary( I think most do not ) think you need to go back to the drawing board, and first ask the membership if they see a benefit to any name or brand change.

Consultation, courtesy and respect impose a very small cost upon democracy, both in terms of finances, effort and time frame. The alternative system, without these attributes, as described by Xharlie above, is not something I would pay for from a membership organisation.
Post edited at 14:52
2
JayPee630 26 Jul 2016
In reply to MooseMouse:

Indeed, FFS countries make attempts to engage whole populations on things like flag changes (see NZ recently), so it's ludicrous the BMC couldn't even attempt it with its membership.

I don't want to be cynical, but I suspect they did think about asking the membership, but knew we woudn't give the answer they wanted.

I can't see any other option as to how this happened without membership consultation.

Dave Turnbull, what was the actual discussion about consulting the membership?
3
left_edge 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
"for a branding agency to take a detailed look at how people perceive the BMC and how we might be able to improve our image to connect with new people and stay relevant in the modern age."

Which "people"? Only people outside of the BMC, in the wider market, or were the current membership also included in this consideration?

"None of which are hugely better than British Mountaineering Council / BMC."
And Climb Britain was?!

"What did the consultancy work involve? Discussion with a sample of BMC volunteers, Area reps, climbing wall managers, young and older climbers, hill walkers and others. Meetings with members of the BMC Women£s Development Group, our Hill Walking Development Group and staff, and visits to climbing walls."

This sounds like a range of relevant interested parties, but given that absolutely nobody appears to have been aware of this prior to the announcement, the sampling on this must have been miniscule... As mentioned elsewhere on this thread, gossip spreads in this type of organisation, and for this to have entirely escaped the notice of everybody suggests that either very few people were asked (poorly designed research), or were sworn to secrecy (not desperately democratic). Even if these discussions were used to develop the concept or to get ideas, the final concepts should have been much more widely researched within the membership. It would have been a quick, cheap online survey - hey, what do you think of the new names(s)/logo(s) - which would have avoided this avalanche of negative feeling towards the BMC when you foisted it on everybody one monday afternoon.
Post edited at 14:56
2
98%monkey 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
Presumably it was done in cahoots with Sport England as there is a movement to get climbing to the Olympics.

The name is 'modern' and probably makes it easier to get funding.

It beg the question why did they have to re-brand the whole BMC. BMC is nice it sounds legitimate, if I were in negotiations with a land-owner I would prefer to be referred to as the BMC. I prefer to say I am a member of the BMC.

I don't actually want to be a member of Climb Britain.

They could have simply had a sporting arm called Climb Britain which sounds a bit like a sports team or sports club anyway. This would have achieved the aim of getting funding and fitting in with the new cool Olympic kids.

Can the membership push back and vote to get what it wants?

A change back is never going to happen, but a compromise may be something achievable.
Post edited at 15:11
1
La benya 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

whatever it cost, you got ripped off. it is terrible and ugly. and no amount of reasoning can take that away.

as for our local reps all giving the thumbs up straight away, with not even one of them suggesting it should at least be put out there to get peoples views... highly suspicious and i very much doubt it.

your 'thoughts' dont really address peoples main concerns;

its fecking disgusting design
the percieved move away from the BMC's historical remit towards olympic goals.

Please could you actually respond to these issues?
2
Xharlie 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

The fact that "climbing walls" is mentioned thrice under "What did the consultancy work involve?" is worrying in the extreme. ("climbing walls"..."managers (presumably of climbing walls)"..."visits to climbing walls")

Call me tired and worn out old fart with my two half-ropes and rack of hexes and disdain for 10 metre limestone bolt ladders (or my couple of ice screws, crampons (like hobnails, but detachable) and single walking axe (more technical than an alpenstock, but only barely), as is more likely the case, lately) but it was not long ago that climbers were jeered at for screwing bits of wood together for dedicated training in their garages when they couldn't make it to the crag. "Dogging" and "Yo-Yoing" used to be bad style!

Is this how far we have come?

I love a good indoor session, personally, particularly when I have an outdoor goal in mind. Nevertheless, indoor climbing at walls still remains only a part of climbing as a whole and climbing is only a part of mountaineering. Perhaps it is gaining significance and perhaps it will gain more in the future but it is still only a part of a part.

Indoor-speed-bouldering will be a part of a part of a part. My prediction is that it will NEVER be popular because "speed" is the antithesis of real climbing, however good the Youtube videos are. Climbing is about control and movement, not speed.

As far as the word "mountaineering" is concerned: I accept that not every member is a mountaineer but there are a fair few of them and there are, surely, a large number of members who have higher ambitions than limestone mounds! I started climbing in the gym and, almost immediately, outside beckoned. Between cragging trips, I dreamed of multi-pitch sagas. On those, I envisioned myself in the Alps. Even today, I still have higher ambitions: when I dismount a sit-lift at the top of a Piste, I long for an opportunity to go ski-mountaineering and lose that particular virginity.

I guess this debate is over. This farce will fade with time, the brand will stick and the name change will slowly be forgotten. Anger will ebb. The facts won't change: the shift in focus will become a reality and old farts like me will simply walk away from it all.

In the end, the mountaineers among us aren't going to stop mountaineering. Perhaps the change is a good thing: corporate-style hijinks and consultancies like "b-whatever" (I still have to use Ctrl+F to find their full name, so that says something...) and "ThinkFarm" (without a space. because that's cool.) will have their playground in which to play and it will be well isolated, well controlled, safe, plastic and ever more shrink-wrapped. The rule book will be written; we will ignore it.
2
Steve Woollard 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Sorry Dave, you've got it wrong, stick with BMC it works
2
MooseMouse 26 Jul 2016
In reply to 98%monkey:

> Can the membership push back and vote to get what it wants?

> A change back is never going to happen, but a compromise may be something achievable.

Of coarse it can, it is a democratic organisation that exists to serve the interests of its members.

Contact your elected local area national council representative.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=646470&new=8355120
KevinD26 Jul 2016
In reply to Graeme Hammond:

> Dave Turnbull turned up at the Peak Area (8-6-2026) Meeting to tell us about the change too but would not divulge the actual name for various reasons.

Because it was shit and even in the future they wont admit to it face to face?
2
jon 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
So Dave, the question on everyone's lips now is - is this definitve or, if there is enough feeling against it (and I'd suggest there's more than enough), is it reversible?
Post edited at 15:18
1
dpmUK 26 Jul 2016
In reply to MooseMouse:

> Of coarse it can, it is a democratic organisation that exists to serve the interests of its members.

> Contact your elected local area national council representative.


Ultimately the members have the right to call an EGM - 100 member's signatures needed to force one. Hopefully it won't reach that point but that's the nuclear option. Given the strength of feeling expressed I would not be surprised if it happens if the BMC don't respond in some meaningful way. I wonder if the BMC has ever had a member-initiated EGM?
JayPee630 26 Jul 2016
In reply to jon:

Dave Turnbull, please also answer the question about whether you thought about consulting the membership, and if yes, why didn't you?

Just a quick yes or no will do, and if yes a sentence explaining why you didn't please.
2
whenry 26 Jul 2016
In reply to jon:

It's reversible - if we get together an EGM and win the vote on a binding resolution to keep the brand as the British Mountaineering Council.

The question is simply how many people of those grumbling here and on Facebook are prepared to sign the EGM requisition, and then vote.
1
Chris the Tall 26 Jul 2016
In reply to left_edge:

Have you considered that some of the people consulted may be the activists for whom the name "British Mountaineering Council" was causing difficulty - access reps for example, who have to explain to someone why a council of mountaineers want to visit some boulders in their back garden.

Also that the whole point of a launch is there something new to say - rather than the news trickling out.

I'm not saying I agree with the new name, but I can see the problem with the old one, and I think far too many people are being far too quick to assume that there are malicious forces at play. In fact, it's much the same as the BMC has always been - a bunch of people trying their best and not always getting it right !
10
herbe_rouge 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Twenty five grand gets you a lot of market research – in fact it would get you a large-n online survey using appropriate sampling techniques plus some structured qualitative focus group data, followed by a full-fat segmentation model using analytic techniques such as logistic regression, linear discriminant analysis, MVPA etc. This would have provided the BMC with a representative corpus of data from which you could have gathered insight as to the range of, and nature of, segments in the population that are relevant to the BMC. This is precisely how marketing works and how organisations seek to respond to changes in the market. From what you've written, it appears that the BMC has entered a post-quantitative age and paid 25K for some consultants to have a chat with an undisclosed number of people. Either the BMC got the answer it wanted or it failed to specify what it wanted with sufficient clarity. Regardless, the result is clear, there is overwhelming sadness, anger and opposition to this re-branding and it should be reversed as casually as it was implemented.
Xharlie 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

When did big-bang "launches" become the remit of the BMC? The BMC isn't Apple - it isn't supposed to be, at least.
2
JayPee630 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

I think you're being naive. If an access rep can't explain what the BMC is in a sentence or two to a landowner while negotiating access then they're not fit for their role.

The launch is a rubbish argument, the launch would be a public/media event, not something to spring on the actual membership!

And in terms of seeing some manipulative behaviour going on, I just can't see any other reasoning as to why the membership hasn't been consulted. It didn't have to have the last word on the decision, but what on earth could be the reason for not involving them in the process?

1
dpmUK 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

My problem is more with how the decision was made and how it's been presented. Honestly I don't know enough to know whether the change is sensible. And that's part of the problem - it's not been well explained.

> Have you considered that some of the people consulted may be the activists for whom the name "British Mountaineering Council" was causing difficulty - access reps for example, who have to explain to someone why a council of mountaineers want to visit some boulders in their back garden.

If that's part of the reason then why not tell the members. I'm sure most of the members are reasonable people and if a good reasoned argument was made for the change you'd probably have a lot less angry people. Now I'm sure many would still dislike the name but I'm sure even many of those would be accepting if it was shown to be necessary.

> Also that the whole point of a launch is there something new to say - rather than the news trickling out.

New trickling out is, indeed, normally a bad way to do things. However this should have been launched as a consultation on a rebranding not as a fait acompli.

> I'm not saying I agree with the new name, but I can see the problem with the old one, and I think far too many people are being far too quick to assume that there are malicious forces at play. In fact, it's much the same as the BMC has always been - a bunch of people trying their best and not always getting it right !

From my experience at the Peak meet you're right it is how the BMC has been for a long time. The problem is that system is broken and this whole incident has just made that obvious to way more of the members. I have absolutely no doubt that everyone is trying to do their best. But if the system is broken doing your best still may not be enough.
1
Bootrock 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:


Wow. I am impressed. I don't think I have ever read such elaborate, bureaucratic, bullshit. Talk about bullshit baffles brains.

It's shit, we all think it's shit, you knew it would be shit, you won't admit it's shit, to save face.

There's blatantly hidden reasons for upper echelons to go for this and deliberately deceive the members.
9
Gordon Stainforth 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I think sooner or later a climbing wall will be tempted to make a huge plywood cut-out of Britain about 30 feet high, so that you could then literally 'Climb Britain'. There would be two routes. The standard way up the east side, quite easy after a difficult start round the bulge of Essex, but with a bit of a sting in the tail at the top (Scotland) with two overhanging walls. The west side would be a lot more challenging and gymnastic, with difficult overhangs round Wales and the Lakes, and then a very testing finish with the multiple spiky roofs of the Inner Hebrides and Skye.
MooseMouse 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:
>I think far too many people are being far too quick to assume that there are malicious forces at play. In fact, it's much the same as the BMC has always been - a bunch of people trying their best and not always getting it right !


Chris, you are being too generous.

To be clear, I'm not pointing fingers at Dave in any way, but we have been here before.

Subterfuge and concealment are all tools in the arsenal of those who are too arrogant , too lazy, too simple or too tired to engage.

I'm not saying that all difficult decision making processes have to reach a consensus, that is quite impossible and you can never satisfy everybody with most outcomes. Members respect and understand this.
That said, it is simply not right to deny members at least the opportunity to have their say in the bigger issues.

That is blatantly what has happened in this case! For goodness sake, there have been opportunities via several rounds of area meetings and an AGM, not to mention social media, during the period of the consultation process!
Post edited at 15:41
2
toad 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I wonder if we could persuade thinkfarm/ b-whateveritis to come and explain their thinking here or on the BMC facebook page? #summoned to the headmasters office


I have absolutely no idea what a hashtag is, btw
philhilo 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Great, would be good to see people turning up and contributing - maybe some people taking on some of the positions rather than just shooting down those that put in the time and the effort. If people get this worked up about a bit of rebranding then they must be passionate about helping on access, supporting new members, making sure young people get involved etc. Excellent.
8
steveriley 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I can only imagine the clarity that would emerge from consultation with UKC.
Bootrock 26 Jul 2016
In reply to toad:

Maybe #climbbritain would be a hip cool better name?


Thinkfart and b-fooled. Fair play to them, bet they could rebrand snow and sell it to the Inuit at a substantial markup.
kevin stephens 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

One of the most valuable roles of the British Mountaineering Council is to maintain and improve access. I can only see the rebranding to Climb Britain making it much harder to negotiating access with land owners; even raising the spectre of hordes of GB track-suited athletes with coach bearing down on their land.

There seems to have been no meaningful canvasing of members' opinion.

If it came to it I would support a motion to hold an EGM
2
jon 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

> Thinkfart and b-fooled. Fair play to them, bet they could rebrand snow and sell it to the Inuit at a substantial markup.

Clearly they probably couldn't.

Chris the Tall 26 Jul 2016
In reply to dpmUK:

> From my experience at the Peak meet you're right it is how the BMC has been for a long time. The problem is that system is broken and this whole incident has just made that obvious to way more of the members. I have absolutely no doubt that everyone is trying to do their best. But if the system is broken doing your best still may not be enough.

From my experience that sort of talk leads to a late night phone call and an invitation to join a "working group".....
KevinD26 Jul 2016
In reply to jon:

> Clearly they probably couldn't.

They would be able to cash the cheque from the Inuit Snow Council though before the complaints came in.
Adderbury Climber 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Bootrock:
If you ask marketing and PR companies to give you ideas on your branding, logo etc. you are never going to get a response like 'your current name and logo are fine, the tradition and heritage etc. is valuable'. They make their money by coming up with new, trendy ideas, catering to the latest social media trends etc. In 5 years time if you ask the question again you will get another new look, brand, logo, etc.

The BMC should have realised this when they asked companies with names like b-focused and thinkfarm for their opinions.

What will be the right brand to have in 10 years time I wonder. This one will not age well I fear.
Post edited at 16:14
1
whenry 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I'm sure the initial post had 333 dislikes earlier, and now has 122 - have people been un-disliking the post, or has there been a glitch?
1
1poundSOCKS 26 Jul 2016
In reply to whenry:

> I'm sure the initial post had 333 dislikes earlier, and now has 122 - have people been un-disliking the post, or has there been a glitch?

Up to 1,122, but only room for 3 digits?
1
Martin Haworth 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Good response Dave and well done for putting your head above the parapet. I'm a trad climber and mountaineer who agrees with what your trying to achieve with the rebrand, it was always going to meet with a hostile response from many members, so a brave move.
The world of climbing is changing with more indoor climbers, boulderers, sport climbers, competition climbers... and if we want to have a thriving climbing scene and hopefully pull some of these indoor climbers into the great outdoors and trad climbing and mountaineering then things have to change.
I think the hostile and sometimes ignorant response your getting actually makes me even more convinced that things need to change.
21
Sean Kelly 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Xharlie:

> EDIT: Yes, yes. "All of the consultancy work leading up to the Climb Britain announcement has been funded by Sport England." whatever. That's just the tip of the ice-berg. What about the t-shirts, hoodies and coffee cups, banners and stationary, paperwork, contracts, ...

I'll have to get all my BMC t-shirts re-printed too!
1
neilh 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I am going to stoke the fire here. BMC is an old name now in this digital age- after all it could easily be be a pro cycling team or a bike. You only have to google bmc to see its not really a good name anymore.
5
Offwidth 26 Jul 2016
In reply to dpmUK:
Cheeky bugger. I only remember you at a handful of meetings over a period of less than 3 years, a few years back (unlike Chris who is a regular attender over many years and an ex national council rep... and who helped in making the BMC more democratic by challenging club block votes ). The 'system' allows an EGM where the branding change can be democratically overturned by members. Broken System? .... you sound like one of the Roman critics on Lfe of Brian. It's a broken decision at most, made in good faith given the volunteer officer input and national council votes.
Post edited at 16:32
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

OK, to try to answer a few more of the points raised so far:

The issue of consultation: The answer to this lies is in the way the whole branding project came about and developed. As I said earlier, the process wasn’t designed to come up with a name change, it just evolved that way, we didn’t ask for it or expect it. So, we got the go ahead for the agency to do some free work for us, they went out and talked to people and came back with a proposition. Our board of directors liked it, we put it to our National Council, they liked it and it was agreed. That’s how it was. The idea of a wide spread consultation process or referendum style vote never really came into it. Also, there are commercial and legal sensitivities involved with rebranding which make it difficult to go public. Imagine the scenario: we ask people what they prefer, they agree it, then before we know what’s happening someone else likes the idea, buys all the URLs and sets up a company with the same name. This stuff happens.

Link between rebranding & modernisation: The BMC’s reach and membership isn’t as big as it should be given the large of people climbing and hill walking these days. Feedback over the years, especially from younger people, has always suggested the BMC has an imagine problem. Climb Britain should help and the ‘BMC’ certainly won’t be lost. Our formal name will still be ‘The BMC’ on all of our legal documentation, we’ll still use it, you’ll still see the logo and our core work (access, conservation, environment, land ownership, safety etc) will stay the same.

Dave

27
lithos 26 Jul 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

nope it scales to fit 4 chars, there are only 3 chars in the source,
doesnt mean there isn't an error in the database behind it
Bootrock 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Surely asking the membership in a rebrand, or taking a vote might be a good idea to gauge how people feel about it, you don't need to divulge names for an initial reaction. That stuff can come later.

If the reach and membership isn't as big as it should be, then shouldn't you be addressing the content, quality and the role, and what the BMC is doing. rather than wasting time, effort and money rebranding.

You can roll a turd in glitter, and polish it up, make it look nice but at the end of the day, it's still a turd.



2
Steve Findlay 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
Steve Findlay I have long thought the 'Council' bit sounded a rather dated, Climb Britain seems a little stark but I like the inclusive ribbon along the bottom of the logo. We will have forgotten the fuss in a couple of years / months / weeks/days and get on with ascending in its many forms.
10
JayPee630 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

"The idea of a wide spread consultation process or referendum style vote never really came into it. "

Are you serious that at no point did any of you say, "Hang on, this is a massive change, what about asking the membership?"

If so that's disgusting and gives away your contempt for the views of the members and any attempt at democracy.
3
Offwidth 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Yet you must know the real reach problem is the lack of vast swathes of over 25 trad and sport climbers who can afford to join but won't don't; despite being internet critics (lets hear on this thread who are individual or club members... I am an individual member). The BMC seems to me to have a pretty good under 25 membership especially given its (mainly unfair) reputation.
La benya 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

you still haven't responded to the fact that literally everyone thinks the name sucks and the design, especially the font is terrible.

i also don't believe that every one of the area reps thought it a good idea to not consult at least some of the membership.
Steve Findlay 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Image problem... not imagine problem

> OK, to try to answer a few more of the points raised so far:

> The issue of consultation: The answer to this lies is in the way the whole branding project came about and developed. As I said earlier, the process wasn’t designed to come up with a name change, it just evolved that way, we didn’t ask for it or expect it. So, we got the go ahead for the agency to do some free work for us, they went out and talked to people and came back with a proposition. Our board of directors liked it, we put it to our National Council, they liked it and it was agreed. That’s how it was. The idea of a wide spread consultation process or referendum style vote never really came into it. Also, there are commercial and legal sensitivities involved with rebranding which make it difficult to go public. Imagine the scenario: we ask people what they prefer, they agree it, then before we know what’s happening someone else likes the idea, buys all the URLs and sets up a company with the same name. This stuff happens.

> Link between rebranding & modernisation: The BMC’s reach and membership isn’t as big as it should be given the large of people climbing and hill walking these days. Feedback over the years, especially from younger people, has always suggested the BMC has an imagine problem. Climb Britain should help and the ‘BMC’ certainly won’t be lost. Our formal name will still be ‘The BMC’ on all of our legal documentation, we’ll still use it, you’ll still see the logo and our core work (access, conservation, environment, land ownership, safety etc) will stay the same.

> Dave

1
1poundSOCKS 26 Jul 2016
In reply to lithos:

> nope it scales to fit 4 chars, there are only 3 chars in the source

Wasn't being serious.
Erik B 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News: no wonder the English are so confused about their national identity. Just call it Mountaineering England and align with the Scottish version naming convention.

KevinD26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

> Link between rebranding & modernisation: The BMC’s reach and membership isn’t as big as it should be given the large of people climbing and hill walking these days. Feedback over the years, especially from younger people, has always suggested the BMC has an imagine problem. Climb Britain should help

Should. How? its seems to be alienating a lot of the membership. Whilst mountaineering perhaps isnt the best name neither is climb. Do you think people are so simple minded that a new name will suddenly get them engaged? Wouldnt it have been better to spend that 25k on some carefully targeted campaigns at those demographics you think are being missed out.
You mention the "agency to do some free work for us". Is this correct or were they paid by someone else eg Sport England?
The URL argument doesnt really add up. You are talking about 30 quid for a year. Not exactly a huge hit especial as Climb Britain wouldnt necessarily be a bad name for a campaign anyway.

In reply to Steve Findlay:

Well spotted Steve
Trangia 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
" For years we've pondered about the suitability of "Mountaineering Council" in our name, but we've never been able to come up with an acceptable alternative."

Who are "we"? As a member I've never heard mention that this was an issue within the BMC. If it was, no-one has told us.

I'm actually quite proud to be a member of such a well known, long standing and well respected body, and I have been unaware that people have been pondering for years over it's suitability. I am disgusted at the way this decision has been foisted on the membership without any warning or consultation.

As others have said the whole thing stinks.
Post edited at 16:48
1
Bootrock 26 Jul 2016
In reply to mark_wellin:

If the area reps did think it was a good idea, they probably didn't want to inform the members because they wanted to be part of that special group and be seen as having "done their bit" and get attention for some hard work.

I have seen few things rebrand/merge and it's all about people looking out for themselves and their careers and getting Attention and looking like they are all special and important, it's got f*ck all to do with frontline issues or members. It's their ego.
1
Simon Caldwell 26 Jul 2016
In reply to philhilo:

> maybe some people taking on some of the positions rather than just shooting down those that put in the time and the effort.

I've done lots of volunteer work over the years. If I bollox something up then I expect to be held to account for it - I certainly wouldn't start down the route of "you can't disagree because you didn't help". Most people have more than enough to do, but are entitled to comment when something happens that directly affects them. Especially if they didn't even know that decisions were being made so didn't have the chance of taking part.
Gordon Stainforth 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Steve Findlay:

I think the biggest problem now is that it's not clear from the name what it is/means. It sounds like something commercial, to promote climbing in Britain as some kind of tourist thing. Or even some kind of challenging charity event. It's not obvious that it's a body representing British climbers and climbing clubs, fighting for access etc. Secondly, it implies that it's all to do with climbing in Britain, in British venues, and not the continent, Himalaya, and elsewhere. The old title did the job perfectly, and 'the BMC' tripped off the tongue easily. 'Climb Britain' is both clunky and vague.
SenzuBean 26 Jul 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

My original dislike was removed - I've now added it back. It'd be pretty poor coding if the dislikes overflowed and was reset like this accidentally, and an even worse show if they were intentionally adjusted.
1
toad 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

So, now you know how a significant part of the membership feels (yes, offwidth - me and the mrs are joint members - have been for decades because we thought it a "good thing", rather than because we need it), will you consider at least a pause to allow for that consultation you felt unable to do earlier. This is a question that's been asked a lot - here and on other platforms. Any chance of a straight answer? It can involve "no" if you wish, at least that's a definite
3leggeddog 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

> Do you reckon? I email them occasionally, generally about access or their broken website, and haven't had any reply to anything since 2012.

Sadly, that i my experience too, emails about access not replied to, not even an autoreply. sob

This whole thing will eventually blow over, no one will adopt the new name, all correspondence will refer to the BMC and eventually they will give in.

Hello climb britain how may I help you?

Is that the BMC?

Yes

Good...

After a few thousand of those they will get the message.

Back in the dotcom years rack n ruin tried changing their name to something fashionable, it didnt work for them for the same reasons, old brand just too well established
spiritwalker 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

So you brought in a couple of marketing and design agencies, and were surprised when they came back with a name change and re-design??? Astounding, I'd never have expected that!

Feedback over "the years"? How many?? I remember the exact same things being said when I first joined, and I was one of the "younger people" at that point, it didn't seem to put me off joining.

How -exactly- do you plan to keep the BMC name and logo from being lost? Why keep it at all, if this is the direction you are going in?

Did the marketing people ever mention the potential for loss of goodwill that seems to have been overlooked significantly here?
La benya 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

> Well spotted Steve

still ignoring the fact that you paid for something utterly crap, Dave...?
1
SenzuBean 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Steve Findlay:

> ... and get on with ascending in its many forms.

Ah yes. Climbing to altitude with my Cessna. Climbing the corporate ladder. Climbing ladders to clean rooves. Climbing rolling hills with my bike. Climb Parnassus (= write poetry). Will these be able to fit into the v2 of the banner?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

...a few more responses:

Yes, Sport England paid for the branding work.

Just to be clear, Climb Britain is a change in identity, the 'BMC' will remain our formal name and will no doubt continue to be used where its useful alongside the Climb Britain logo. Worth looking at the LTA/British Tennis example (top of website): https://www.lta.org.uk/

I like the logo, its strong and distinct.
22
dpmUK 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> Cheeky bugger. I only remember you at a handful of meetings over a period of less than 3 years, a few years back

I agree that is the case, but there was a reason I attended only a few meetings - I had attended enough to know, that in my opinion, it was pointless attending any more as it seemed my opinions were not appreciated. I wonder how many other members go to one or two meetings and don't go to any more as they feel similar. Discounting people's views because they haven't been to lots of meeting is part of the problem. If people are only turning up for a couple of meetings that is a problem. In my opinion it's a self-perpetuating problem, people will only stay if they "fit in" with the current group of people at the meetings. Therefore there is very little chance of new members with different views being able to change things. Do I know what the solution is? No. But there is a problem there that needs looking at.

> (unlike Chris who is a regular attender over many years and an ex national council rep... and who helped in making the BMC more democratic by challenging club block votes ).

And I value and appreciate his work and all volunteers work which I have made clear.

> The 'system' allows an EGM where the branding change can be democratically overturned by members. Broken System? .... you sound like one of the Roman critics on Lfe of Brian.

Yes it can. But it should never have reached that point. It shouldn't have been hard for the BMC to discover member's opinions when it's this strong and this prevelant.

> It's a broken decision at most, made in good faith given the volunteer officer input and national council votes.

I have absolutely no doubt it was made ion good faith.
La benya 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

so youre going to ignore the entirety of the feedback, which has been resoundly negative?

ask literally any graphic designer who you arent paying whether they like that font?
the logo is terrible. the name is inane
Steve nevers 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:



> I like the logo, its strong and distinct.

Lovely. But its rather clear that a vast number of people you are paid to represent don't agree with you.

1
KevinD26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
> I like the logo, its strong and distinct.

It looks like something I might come up. Which considering my response to being asked to do any frontend work is to tell whoever is asking to find someone who likes and is good at design really aint a good thing.
Post edited at 17:17
astley007 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
Feedback over the years, especially from younger people, has always suggested the BMC has an imagine problem.

Shouldn't that be image, maybe you should check with your press agency: Marco Richards!!!.before you put something out into the public domain

I apologise for not reading down the thread, but Steve Findlay noted it 10 mins after you published it and you noted it...I scrolled back up be I note that you cannot be bothered with re-editing what you have wrote.
If you do not have the will to correct a small mistake, how can anyone have faith in you for anything in the future.
Post edited at 17:25
4
jon 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

> I like the logo, its strong and distinct.

It really, really isn't either. Sorry.
1
kevin stephens 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
Hi Dave, I think that retaining the British Mountaineering Council as the official name is very positive. I read into your latest post that this will still be available for access negotiations? If so then I am happier. However your original announcement indicated that Climb Britain will completely replace the BMC. I think some urgent and public clarification may be needed. Will insurance branding change?
Post edited at 17:14
Bootrock 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Then what's the point? I fail to see what this made up identity crap is?



Did LTA get ripped off by b-fooled and thinkfart TOO?
Glyno 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

>

> I like the logo, its strong and distinct.

have a word with yourself, it's shit and well you know it, you're just saying what you've got to say.
2
Max factor 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Adderbury Climber:

> What will be the right brand to have in 10 years time I wonder. This one will not age well I fear.

You'd have to say it hasn't aged well, given this would be on trend right about 1997 when Nu-labour were voted in and Oasis were sipping champagne in downing street.
galpinos 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
> I like the logo, its strong and distinct.

Are you sure you're not describing the old logo? The use of "negative space" was very pleasing on the eye and it looked very professional.

The new logo and font looks like a title screen for a late night edgy comedy drama on Channel 4*, not exactly the image you should be going for. I have similar issues with the name as everyone else but the logo and font are the biggest issue for me. There's no gravitas.

I quite like the tagline though.....

*Having read the full thread and seen the link posted by someone it appears it IS a Channel 4 font.......
Post edited at 17:34
lostcat 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

> Just to be clear, Climb Britain is a change in identity, the 'BMC' will remain our formal name and will no doubt continue to be used where its useful alongside the Climb Britain logo.
You sound very confused!

> I like the logo, its strong and distinct.
No it's not!

mikenty 26 Jul 2016
In reply to galpinos:

I agree. Scrap the rest, add the tagline to the old name and logo.
r0x0r.wolfo 26 Jul 2016
In reply to andrewmcleod

> Would you withhold that money from them just to avoid a rebranding (not even a name change in law, as I understand it)?

Are you suggesting Sport England threatened to pull the money unless the BMC changed it's name? Bizarre. I'd rather cover the competition side out of our subs if the alternative is being held to randsom by sport england.
Glyno 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

it would be interesting to know how many BMC members there are currently, compared with climbBRITAIN members in 12 months time.
spiritwalker 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Glyno:

Given the current state of affairs, there is going to be one less BMC member quite shortly here.... ;)
captain paranoia 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

> Our formal name (Companies House, Memorandum & Articles of Association) will remain the British Mountaineering Council (BMC), and ‘BMC’ will still be used in aspects of our media and membership literature.

Won't that dilute the message, and confuse everyone? Is it the BMC? Is it ClimbBritain? Are they the same thing?
kevin stephens 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Glyno:
I hope it's a lot more and I can see the reasoning behind the rebranding (subject to my caveat above, please read). With all the wall bred climbers venturing outside to the crags it's really important that they engage with the BMC/Climb Britain to understand access, conservation, safety and etiquette. Hopefully Climb Britain will seem less pompous and elitist and more relevant to the uninitiated. However the BMC must retain status and gravitas behind the Climb Britain window dressing
Post edited at 17:53
5

It might have been done in good faith but as you can see we're all really not impressed. The BMC stands to lose so much more than it could ever gain from this. It's time to start listening to the members now.

If stubbornness wins out and it does go ahead, how would one go about proposing a motion at the next AGM to undo the name change?
Edit: Never mind. The EGM that's on the cards would also work...
Post edited at 18:08
steveriley 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

What's a 'Mountaineering Council' anyway? Imagine the kerfuffle if someone were to suggest that. Who knew climbers were such a conservative bunch.
9
captain paranoia 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

A thought occurred to me about the Sport England thing, and the age demographics. I wonder if someone (Sport England) looked at the BMC membership demographics and said "doesn't meet our average figures for yoof: you need to encourage more yoof to join".

But I wonder if the participation demographics of climbing are different to those of other sports where youthful athleticism is more of a requirement. There do seem to be a lot of old climbers about (hence the chatter about greybeards, pipe smokers, etc of the BMC membership).
Martin Haworth 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
The problem with threads like this is that they aren't representative in any way. You get a lot of angry and gobby people giving their opinion as if it's fact. They all think they are experts. Then a load more like minded people join in and start hitting the like button. Anyone with something constructive to say is drowned out, anyone who disagrees doesn't want to post because they will get vitriolic responses and "dislikes".
I think the tone of some of the responses to Dave Turnbull have been extremely unpleasant.
Let's keep it civilised.
18
neilh 26 Jul 2016
In reply to captain paranoia:

you mean all those youthful cyclists riding their BMC bikes
1
La benya 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Martin Haworth:

Yeah. If only there was some way to get a truly representative view of your membership. Maybe it could be anonymous. Perhaps online. Maybe a few simple questions with one of 5 answers. If only something like this existed and was available to the marketing company that apparently checked to see what people like...
SenzuBean 26 Jul 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> My original dislike was removed - I've now added it back. It'd be pretty poor coding if the dislikes overflowed and was reset like this accidentally, and an even worse show if they were intentionally adjusted.

Oops - it was a PEBKAC this time.
Postmanpat 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Talk about a storm in a teacup!. It's just a name change folks, not the annexation of the Sudetenland.
What matters is whether the BMC/Climb Britain is effectively representing the interests of the broad climbing community. It's a stretch to suggest that a name change and a new logo are going to seriously hinder that.
It seems to me that there are a lot of people with much wider gripes either about the way the climbing community has changed or the role of the BMC within that who are using the name change to give it a kicking.
16
The Green Giant 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

This is so typical of the British climbing community; slow, behind times and scared of change.

Dave, I think it's great. You guys do a great job, just remember to stay small and humble enough to still organise crag clean ups with PyB kegs and dodgy raffles.

To everyone else; give it time and stop bitching. No-body is going to want to join or help fund an organisation with you lot as members.

As for the logo, it's started off a bit shit, but it will morph in years and will begin to look familiar around the place.
17
captain paranoia 26 Jul 2016
In reply to neilh:

Cycling was another sport that I considered had an extended age demographic; I almost mentioned in...
beth 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

How about keeping the British Mountaineering Council exactly how it is or rather was, keeping the history and gravitas. Split off "Climb England" with its trendy logo to concentrate on sport climbing, encouraging young people to participate, everything climbing related/etc. You can then put on appropriate documentation/websites/press releases "backed by the British Mountaineering Council". Make CE a separate entity, with its own webzine/app/mag chock full of climbing. Leaving Summit to become much more balanced in it's coverage of BMC activities, like hillwalking and general mountaineering. Then you might actually attract hillwalkers to join - a good story told through the content in a magazine is crucial as for many people who don't go to area meetings have no other contact than when they open the mag. And frankly for the last few years I was a member Summit just looked like a climbing club mag.

Climb England would also fit in with the Climb Cymru, and Climb Scotland which was started by the MCofS last year.
SenzuBean 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> What matters is whether the BMC/Climb Britain is effectively representing the interests of the broad climbing community. It's a stretch to suggest that a name change and a new logo are going to seriously hinder that.

That word represent... it does not mean what you think it does. It means take into account the views of members for important and relevant topics, and then present those - in effect re-presenting those views. That's why it's not only not a stretch, but a foregone conclusion that they are not going to effectively represent the broader memberbase and other outdoor users - because of exactly how this was handled.
Marek 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

<SNIP> ... but the overwhelming reaction was that the time (and the name) was right ...

Given the massive disconnect between the 'overwhelming' opinions of of the BMC executive and a random sampling of the members (yes, yes, I know about UKC and 'gobby' posters, but it's the best we've got in the absence of a proper consultation) it seems the executive need a really hard look at themselves and ask whether they really can represent the members in important matters when what should have been a trivial exercise has apparently gone so wrong.


fire_munki 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

> I like the logo, its strong and distinct.

I think that might be because you (as a group not the singular you) just paid for it.

Anytime you (that's the buyer) spends money on something that thing becomes the best choice.
1
Trangia 26 Jul 2016
In reply to The Green Giant:

>

> To everyone else; give it time and stop bitching. No-body is going to want to join or help fund an organisation with you lot as members.

>

You are missing the point, yes whether you like the name and logo is a matter of opinion, but what is really angering people is the secrecy and subterfuge in bringing it about and failure to consult the membership before making the change. How can you have any faith in an organisation which totally ignores it's members? That's not democracy, it's pure arrogance and treating your members like idiots.
1
KevinD26 Jul 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> What matters is whether the BMC/Climb Britain is effectively representing the interests of the broad climbing community.

We hit problem number one here. Since what about all those hill walkers who wouldnt consider themselves climbers and now might be thinking about whether they are going to be represented?


crice26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Either we have here the largest group of neophobes in existence, or this is a monumentally shit and stupid idea. My vote is with the latter.

Will they listen? I doubt it.

The BMC stood for something, carried gravitas and was respected as a time-honoured organisation. This just makes them sound like a total joke.

As a member I am not only distinctly unimpressed but saddened.
1
Marek 26 Jul 2016
In reply to The Green Giant:

> This is so typical of the British climbing community; slow, behind times and scared of change.

I don't think people are scared of change. It's more a case of if you are going to change then make sure it's a change for the better. Change for its own sake is rarely good.

> Dave, I think it's great. You guys do a great job, just remember to stay small and humble enough to still organise crag clean ups with PyB kegs and dodgy raffles.

Indeed, focus on the important stuff (I'm serious).

> To everyone else; give it time and stop bitching. No-body is going to want to join or help fund an organisation with you lot as members.

Isn't it largely funded by the members? The very members the executive risk alienating?

> As for the logo, it's started off a bit shit, but it will morph in years and will begin to look familiar around the place.

Agreed. It's shit. So why not get it right in the first place?

However, the real issue is no longer the esthetic merits of the logo, but more the behaviour of the executive who are supposed to represent the membership rather than pander to outside interests.

Postmanpat 26 Jul 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> That word represent... it does not mean what you think it does.
>
Maybe it doesn't mean what you think it means. The BMC is not a parliamentary democracy and has never pretended to be.
9
SenzuBean 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Maybe it doesn't mean what you think it means. The BMC is not a parliamentary democracy and has never pretended to be.

The closest I could find to a constitution on short notice:

BMC Mission Statement
The BMC promotes the interests of climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers and the freedom to enjoy their activities. Through a democratic structure the BMC will:
• Negotiate access improvements and promote cliff and mountain conservation
• Promote and advise on good practice, facilities, training and equipment
• Support events and specialist programmes including youth and excellence
• Provide services and information for members

Which along with the name 'Council' - implies that yes, there was supposed to be democracy.
migs493 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Wrong, wrong, wrong! BMC forever!

Postmanpat 26 Jul 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:
> The closest I could find to a constitution on short notice:

> Which along with the name 'Council' - implies that yes, there was supposed to be democracy.

I'm perfectly aware of that statement, but that doesn't mean to me that it is a representative let alone a direct democracy, simply that members are encouraged to be involved in the types of issues listed. If issues like this one are thrown open to the wider membership we'd have a recipe for complete stasis.

Anyway, it's all a mountain out of a molehill.
Post edited at 19:46
6
crice26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
Mr Turnbull,
An agency was paid to do a rebranding exercise; they're hardly likely to come back to you and say "it ain't broke, don't try to fix it" are they?!
I would suggest that the reason membership is not a big as you would like is because nowadays people don't feel the need to be members of 'clubs'. This applies to all recreational activities.
Before the advent of social media (I bet you can find dozens of climbing 'groups' on Facebook with no affiliation to the BMC) a club was a focal point for meeting other like minded individuals, learning about a sport etc. This is not unique to mountaineering, hill walking and climbing. I've seen the exact same thing with motorsport (with which I am also involved). Every town used to have a Motor Club and it would be well attended by young and old. This is not the case nowadays and yet there are not significantly fewer people involved in the sport overall if you consider all disciplines.
The difference with motorsport is that, for most disciplines, membership of the sport's governing body (the MSA) is mandatory. The MSA are now fairly universally loathed by their membership following a number of costly (to members) and unnecessary legislative changes where the council who represent the membership were overruled by those at the very top.
Please, do not be like them. Listen to your members or you'll be losing them faster than you attract new ones.
Post edited at 19:55
Sean Kelly 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
I can recall the days with no internet, when the BMC (and Alan Blackshaw) decided to get closer to the mountains (or rather hills of the Peak) and moved to Manchester, after previously sharing facilities with the AC in London. As a big decision, that was welcomed by the majority of climbers at the time. And then we must recall that few climbers were members of the BMC, unless you happened to be a club member (and still be unaware of the BMC and what it did). The result of this decision was the vast expansion of the role of the BMC, and subsequent massive increase in membership. Will this latest rebranding achieve a similar result by reaching out to the disinterested, youth and the unknowing?
As a member of 3 BMC affiliated clubs I had heard precisely nothing until the announcement yesterday. So much for consultation with the members!
Post edited at 20:00
Greenbanks 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I've been reading this thread with great interest. There's a book...even a film here...such are the plots, counter-plots, mis-informations, bad guys v good guys etc.

Without wishing to pile straight in though, my initial feeling was that the thing was a kind of mid-summer wind up. Certainly, from a design perspective the logo looks like it was done by a BTEC student (sorry, that might come across as demeaning to such students, whom I admire greatly - my daughter was one!).

To be honest I have always been attracted to understatement - and thats what I associate BMC, FRCC and CC (and other organisations) with...a certain air of history, noble challenge, pedigree, respect for culture and tradition etc etc.

I turn away from anything that smacks of pomposity and uneccessary public banner waving. What I feel when I see that logo is (unfortunately) some kind of small-minded nationalism (yes, with even a regrettable NF-style to it). Isn't the name alone ('British') sufficient a motif for the wild places, crags and associated sport on these islands? For me it is and I'm sure it is the case for the thousands who come to climb and walk here from other places every year..

'Climb Britain' is a tacky, back-of-an-envelope job done by design smart-arses with no feel whatever for who we are or what our sports mean to us and to all others who come to these shores. Unlike the Referendum, its not too late to recognise an error...
Steve Perry 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

> I like the logo, its strong and distinct.

Well I suppose that's the end of that discussion then.

captain paranoia 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Trangia:

> but what is really angering people is the secrecy and subterfuge in bringing it about and failure to consult the membership before making the change.

Well, that does bother me, but, above all, it's the fact that they're pandering to the facile, air-headed whims of Sport England, and have been suckered into a totally unnecessary rebranding exercise undertaken by self-serving brand consultants who don't seem to have any regard for the history, heritage or goodwill of an institution, and whose only concern is to sell yet another trite 'me too' verb-noun name format package; that's what bothers me. It really is very 2012, W1A, Perfect Curve bullshit; I note the protagonists from b-fooled even worked on Olympic projects...

Rebranding exercises generally seem to result in confusion and dilution of awareness; the very opposite of the desired intent.
Greenbanks 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I'm not able to comment much else on the consultation process other than whats already been said. Suffice it to say that there'd be (rightly) significant unrest in virtually every organisation, social movement, club, political party, professional association, workplace etc if the key stakeholders were not directly consulted. Reading the 'evidence' there appears to be no-one from the UKC posse who has had any inkling of this, let alone been invited to present an opinion.
stp 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Sounds like a great idea. The word 'mountaineering' surely does not fit with the majority of climbers these days, from the hill walker on one side all the way to the indoor boulderer on the other.
18
Greenbanks 26 Jul 2016
In reply to stp:

Neither does the term "Philosophy" fit with the majority of those academics working in universities; yet the term, and all that it stands for reputationally, is the sought-after qualification (as in Doctor of Philosophy - PhD) for most of us in the sector. And in spite of bowdlerised variants (as in DEng or EdD) few would like to see it changed...
1
Bobling 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

And who said UKC was dull these days?

Read the whole thread with interest., it's good to see so much passion about something we all care so much about. Hey you've got to take the positives where you can.

Why is it so upsetting? Yes there's the whole "Hang on I rather liked the old name, I've been a member for my whole adult life and perhaps someone might have asked us before presenting a fait accompli", but for me there is something else - the joy I get from climbing is related to the purity of it - being outside in a natural landscape, self-reliant, away from the nuisances and annoyances of modern life. It's just you, your partner and the route. This whole introspective "Who do we appeal to, are we modern and up to date (does BMC 'cut it' *gag*), how are we going to represent this on social media, can we get funding from Sport England, what about the Olympics" bollocks is the antithesis of why I love climbing where you get away from all that crap that fills your head at work and in the everyday social mileau. It just makes me very sad and corrupts something that was dear to me.

Still on the upside next time I am out at the crag doing what I love it won't make any difference if I am in extremis under the aegis of BMC or Climb Britain. I just wish that someone at HQ had thought a bit harder about this.

Come on BMC, as Toad said realise when to turn back and put this in the rubbish bin?
Simonfarfaraway 26 Jul 2016
In reply to beth:

I think thats a great idea Beth
stp 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Annabel Tall:

> I suspect that if anything changing the name from Mountaineering (adventurous) to Climb (thinking indoor athletic pursuits) will put youngsters off.

Why on earth does 'Climb' imply indoor athletic pursuits? Mountaineering is climbing, as is climbing on sea cliffs or on big walls or even hillwalking.

I would think most youngsters have very little chance to engage in mountaineering because of school commitments, lack of funds, lack of transport and parental rules. Most, if lucky, only get to climb regularly at indoor walls.
owrehleeoh 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I'm not entirely convinced the name and logo were what was holding back things. So I'm not convinced a rebranding is going to either make the organisation more relevant or more attractive to young members. I quite liked the suggestion this could have been used for a sports climbing subdivision.


Mr Fuller 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

The BMC's gone from a tree belay - solid, routed in tradition, steadfast and honest - to a winter belay consisting of half a warthog and a tied-off snarg: it's reactionary, badly organised, unpopular for all concerned, likely to fall apart at any minute, and basically a pile of ....
1
stp 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Greenbanks:

Well, philosophically speaking, that's a poor and fallacious argument right there. Argument by mere analogy.

Most if not all of the reasoning on here makes no sense and it seems like most of it is just people's natural conservatism against change.

The members weren't asked. Well is the BMC a democratic organisation? Is it usual for the members to be asked on policy changes made?

The change in stationary will cost a lot. Well one person said they'll probably use the old stationary until it runs out. But even if not if it leads to an increase in funding then unless the new stationary costs more than all financial gains it's a lost argument.
6
neilh 26 Jul 2016
In reply to captain paranoia:
Claptrap. There are good ones and bad ones. It overcomes the confusion with the bmc cycle team. I suspect you will probably have never heard of it.
3
CathS 26 Jul 2016
In reply to beth:

> How about keeping the British Mountaineering Council exactly how it is or rather was, keeping the history and gravitas. Split off "Climb England" with its trendy logo to concentrate on sport climbing, encouraging young people to participate, everything climbing related/etc. You can then put on appropriate documentation/websites/press releases "backed by the British Mountaineering Council". Make CE a separate entity, with its own webzine/app/mag chock full of climbing. Leaving Summit to become much more balanced in it's coverage of BMC activities, like hillwalking and general mountaineering. Then you might actually attract hillwalkers to join - a good story told through the content in a magazine is crucial as for many people who don't go to area meetings have no other contact than when they open the mag. And frankly for the last few years I was a member Summit just looked like a climbing club mag.

> Climb England would also fit in with the Climb Cymru, and Climb Scotland which was started by the MCofS last year.


This is a great idea.

Nordie_matt 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Mr Fuller:
> The BMC's gone from a tree belay - solid, routed in tradition, steadfast and honest - to a winter belay consisting of half a warthog and a tied-off snarg: it's reactionary, badly organised, unpopular for all concerned, likely to fall apart at any minute, and basically a pile of ....


Great analogy!
captain paranoia 26 Jul 2016
In reply to neilh:

Sitting here wearing my 'UKC Velo' shirt and cycling shorts. Yes, of course I've heard of the bike manufacturer BMC.
Post edited at 22:04
Greenbanks 26 Jul 2016
In reply to stp:

Analogical argument is rather more substantial than 'mere' I'd say. The analogy I drew elated to tradition and pedigree lending status and a sense of community identity (in each component of the example I drew upon).

You don't work for a graphic design outfit by any chance do you?

1
DWilliamson 26 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

It would really have been difficult to come up with a more generic logo. Some mountains and red, white & blue to represent a British organisation concerned with mountaineering? Must have taken the best part of a pint to come up with that.

Although I do like that it looks quite like an upside down Tricolore flapping in the wind.
Ian Carey 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Hi Dave,

Many organisation that rebrand often experience vocal opposition, which is no surprise as the members are passionate about their beloved organisation. But all membership organisations need to look to the future and keep things fresh. Members are the life blood of the organisation and a steady flow of new people is vital.

I welcome the rebranding and I'm confident that it will make Climb Britain more attractive. Over time this should help improve the diversity of the membership, which I feel is always good to ensure sustainability.

Keep up the good work.

Cheers,

Ian
14
Dave Garnett 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
> Just to be clear, Climb Britain is a change in identity, the 'BMC' will remain our formal name and will no doubt continue to be used where its useful alongside the Climb Britain logo. Worth looking at the LTA/British Tennis example (top of website): https://www.lta.org.uk/


Thanks for the responses Dave. I have to say this still isn't very clear to me but if you are saying that the Climb Britain branding will be used where appropriate (ie for competition / indoor climbing) and BMC will continue to be used elsewhere, then that seems fine to me - although that wasn't the original message.

The BMC is a serious, grown-up organisation and that is precisely the impression we want to give when talking to landowners, or when asked for a comment on a serious accident in the Alps. Climb Britain is fine as a user-friendly brand for outreach to young people and for convincing Sport England / UK of our competitive credentials.

Of course, the consistent use of these two brands for different constituencies does tend to emphasise the logic of these two functions eventually being served by two separate organisations.


Edit: I'm still less than enthusiastic with the new design though - horrible font, highly predictable generic logo.
Post edited at 23:08
BelleVedere 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Why is commercial sponsorship seen as a good thing? better to be independent no?
Chris the Tall 26 Jul 2016
In reply to neilh:

> It overcomes the confusion with the bmc cycle team.

Yep very confusing - I did wonder why my subs were being used to fund TJ van Gardenen, when he clearly can't climb for toffee.

But this year they got good publicity from GVA, and particularly Porte, who made sure the camera moto got a really good look at the name on his his shirt.

Could be worse - back in the 70s, and before they were renamed British Leyland, BMC made particularly bad cars

LesArcs63 26 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

I'm confused!

Will I continue be a member of the 'British Mountaineering Council', or will I be a member of 'Climb Britain' or maybe a member of the 'British Mountaineering Council trading as Climb Britain'?
Misha 27 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
So you're saying that there was no wider consultation because 'it just happened' and 'it was commercially sensitive'. That's just rubbish and you know it!

Things don't just happen, people make them happen. Did no one think that this was kind of a big change and may be there should be a wider consultation with the membership through a survey and/or Area meetings? If no one thought about this, that's just a reflection of the undemocratic direction the BMC is travelling in - which is one of the issues people have with it.

In fact, one of my local area reps has told me that he specifically wrote to your head office asking for further details ahead of our last Area meeting but wasn't told anything. So it seems even the National Council members were kept in the dark until the National Council meeting! This all smacks of the exec wanting to change it, suspecting it won't be popular and effecting it in an underhand way?

As for commercial aspects, it's easy and cheap to buy a domain name. In fact someone who knows where to check these things has suggested above that the domain name was registered back in March.

Don't you realise that you and the other exec members have lost the respect and confidence of a lot of the BMC's members as a result of this sorry episode? Was it worth it? I hope you get lots of sponsorship for the Olympic Climb Britain Team.
1
Misha 27 Jul 2016
In reply to stp:

> The members weren't asked. Well is the BMC a democratic organisation? Is it usual for the members to be asked on policy changes made?

Yes, the BMC is meant to be democratic, representative and accountable. It was (re)designed to be that way a while back, that's why we have Area meetings and the National Council.
Zoe McLean27 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

If you don't like the rebrand, make sure your views are counted - sign this petition https://www.change.org/p/say-no-to-the-bmc-rebranding
1
Dominic Green 27 Jul 2016
Is this "soft money", quangos leaning on the BMC to show evidence of its endeavours to use the money to increase participation in the sport in exchange for the funding it gives to the BMC? If so, the soft money and the BMC have not presented any basis of evidence that this will enhance participation. It appears that it will just antagonise the existing user base. The funding bodies and the BMC are in danger of giving the existing users the impression that it does not give a damn about them - only the swelling of participation numbers matter. Quantity over quality?
If it is nothing to do with that, then what is the reasoning?
Lack of awareness on behalf of the climbing community? Surely not and if so, would this rebrand really address such an issue?
Falling numbers? Maybe that needs to be presented to the members(?) I believe the name for members in quangospeak is "stakeholders".
No point in lacking transparency about the process leading up to the change. This is an organisation which has been very much a grassroots organisation, with good connections to the members. The manner in which this announcement appeared from nowhere does not reflect those strengths.


Dominic Green 27 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

"I like the logo, its strong and distinct."

I regard it as corporate and generic. The existing BMC logo is a better design, more compact, homogenous and recognisable. It would reproduce better, is less unwieldy.

The evidence for the fact that this rebrand "should help" awareness is not presented (I can't help suspecting that it doesn't exist).

£25k doesn't seem to buy much more than a few chats with a bunch of easily accessible volunteers followed up with a bit of derivative clip art masquerading as a logo.

I appears that this process seems to misconstrue climbing as a similar activity to lawn tennis or basketball. It just isn't. The BMC is never going to have the same comparative penetration into the user base as those activities. You don't need to avail of a formal structure to participate (that is part of its appeal).
For an organisation such as Sport England, that might be maddening. Climbing and such sports are popular for the precise reason that they on some level evade that amount of rule based regulation, so Sport England (and their appointed consultants) need to perhaps invest a bit more time in understanding some of the essential cultural differences between more traditional sports and the likes of climbing. It might help to clarify why in wider society such activities are replacing some of the more structured, rule based sports (at least in terms of broad base appeal).
Only in the world of public funding (especially when consultants fees get waved around) - do tails seem to wag dogs to quite this extent.
spidermonkey09 27 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News

Like many people on here I did a bit of a double take when I saw this news, and I did initially think it was an April Fools. I also initially thought it was a terrible idea. Then I thought about it for a while. Any reasonable person will concede that a 'mountaineering council' sounds a bit old and stuffy. It's perfectly possible to keep the democratic ideals of a council without it actually being in the name, so I don't see that as an issue. Also, like it or not, most young people getting into the sport for the first time, like I did when I was 18, will not identify with Mountaineering when they start out. Whether the are hillwalking or trad/sport/bouldering, they will identify with climbing. So I find it hard to criticise this aspect of the change either.

It seems that most people are upset about a perceived loss of influence and gravitas that this name change suggests. I agree that it seems that way at this moment because of the long and proud history of the BMC. But we have to give these things time. In a few months/years the CB/BMC will have integrated itself into our sport and be doing exactly the same work with a wider reach, enabling it to grow the sport better. We can't protect the traditions of climbing unless we actually get young people doing it.

As far as democracy goes, recent events have convinced me that it's often better to rely on elected representatives to make decisions like this. They understand the issues involved much better than you or I can because it's their job, they spend their time doing it. So I don't agree that we should have been consulted. People never vote for name changes until it's too late and the problem is unfixable anytime soon.

Come on guys. This forum is reading like an anti-EU rant on the mail online comments board at the moment. I believe those running the BMC would not do this in chase of the filthy lucre, they're doing it because they think it's necessary to grow the sport and support our sport in the future. The reactionary response is probably a natural response to change but is almost certainly not representative of the whole membership because people don't leave comments expressing ambivalence or satisfaction, like they rarely leave good reviews on TripAdvisor ! I really don't think it's a problem. It's a brave step and I hope it works out. In a year we'll be referring to the CB like nothing has happened
20
Ayrton 27 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Terrible name. Change for the sake of change. I've been in meetings with the likes of b-focused and its real W1A stuff. Total and utter balls. Can members resign on mass to force a u turn?

Maybe someone should register www.bmc.co.uk as its no longer wanted. Sell knitting supplies or sonething.

Ayrton 27 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

From now on whenever you are wobbling on the crux just shout 'b-focused' and send that sh1t.
1
Trangia 27 Jul 2016
In reply to Zoe McLean:

> If you don't like the rebrand, make sure your views are counted - sign this petition https://www.change.org/p/say-no-to-the-bmc-rebranding

Why have you started another petition when there is already one running and started earlier by Jonathan Spooner?

https://www.change.org/p/british-mountaineering-council-stop-the-bmc-from-changing-its-name

It's already in this thread.

As I write the other petition has 219 signatures, yours has 144 . Now is that a total of 363 or is there an element of double counting?

All you are doing now is confusing the issue
JayPee630 27 Jul 2016
In reply to Trangia:
There's a few different issues here...

1) The need for re-branding and/or re-naming.
2) The way it was done without consultation.
3) The actual final new name and logo.

I actually am open to the first being needed. And even the third, while I think the new name and logo are terrible, I'd happily bow to wider agreement with them if they seemed popular.

The second is the real sticking point for me, and no satisfactory answers have yet been given to explain how and why it happened. In fact, the answers give seem to suggest it *was* done in a very underhand and/or stupid way.

The idea of keeping BMC and maybe renaming it as British Mountaineering and Climbing, and then establishing Climb Britain as a climbing specific branch for promotion of indoor and outdoor climbing and competitions (and even perish the thought the Olympics) was the best idea I've seen on here so far.

I also think we're getting very mixed messages from Dave Turnbull. The initial post suggested a renaming and new logo of the BMC, then later he seemed to pull back and suggest it wasn't quite that? And it was a bit odd to suggest looking at the LTA association, as their logos are obviously designed to work together as one, something that the BMC logo and new Climb Britain doesn't look like were designed to do at all.
Post edited at 06:47
JoshOvki 27 Jul 2016
In reply to stp:

> Sounds like a great idea. The word 'mountaineering' surely does not fit with the majority of climbers these days, from the hill walker on one side all the way to the indoor boulderer on the other.

But will indoor boulderers become members? If they are not competition climbers (who generally climb outdoors too) what can the BMC do for them?
UKB Shark 27 Jul 2016

Such mass passion and outrage. But it rings phoney when the local area meets have such piss poor attendance.

16
Abi Chard 27 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: .

> Just to be clear, Climb Britain is a change in identity, the 'BMC' will remain our formal name and will no doubt continue to be used where its useful alongside the Climb Britain logo. Worth looking at the LTA/British Tennis example (top of website): https://www.lta.org. <

This reply is very worrying as it shows the BMC isn't clear itself what it is doing. The email I received to inform me of this said the BMC was changing its name, not its identity. A change in name is a big deal; a change in branding and logos, less so.

The new logo does not retain the letters BMC within it, so you are changing your name. The LTA example you've provided is not the same, their name (LTA) is retained within the logo, alongside British Tennis. Which allows them to continue to easily refer to themselves as the LTA.

You'll just create confusion if you try to be the BMC and Climb Britain at the same time, using a logo that only includes the latter.

If you intend to keep using the BMC name, go for a logo that includes those letters and just uses Climb Britain as a strapline, to keep the sponsors happy. Because from your first reply, it sounds like this is really about making yourself attractive to sponsors.

And if the BMC is using this thread to gauge opinion at all, I rarely post on UKC, but I dislike both the new logo and the way it feels imposed on the membership without warning.

UKB Shark 27 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

A change of name is about as superficial a change as things get yet it is the thing that has got most people up in to a lather related to the BMC. Quite frankly it is pathetic - its confected outrage and an internet media storm in a teacup over something superficial.

The substance of the daily grind of the BMC is something that rarely gets commented on. Actually genuinely giving a shit involves going to Area Meetings and getting involved.
16
JHiley 27 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Unlike many here I'm not offended by the new logo or font. It looks ok. The only thing I don't like about the design is that it was felt necessary to include "climb hills, climb rocks" etc underneath it, which to me seems like an admission that "Climb Britain" is not inclusive.

I'm not sentimental about the name either. The only real worry I have with this change is that it could damage access negotiations.

The BMC sounds like a serious, official organisation. If the British Mountaineering Council are interested in some rocks to on your property you're likely to take notice, especially of the council part. Being an organisation with some history and prestige must help with this too.

Climb Britain really does sound trivial, almost like a local activity group with a couple of minibuses or a marketing company. In a world full of spam and branding it will be a name that's very easy for someone to dismiss.
Trangia 27 Jul 2016
In reply to ukb shark:

> A change of name is about as superficial a change as things get yet it is the thing that has got most people up in to a lather related to the BMC. Quite frankly it is pathetic - its confected outrage and an internet media storm in a teacup over something superficial.

> The substance of the daily grind of the BMC is something that rarely gets commented on. Actually genuinely giving a shit involves going to Area Meetings and getting involved.

If you think the change is superficial that's your opinion, many don't agree with you.

In this case going to Area Meetings wouldn't have done you much good because the proposal to change the name/rebrand had not been sent to them! The membership has been duped, that's the reason for the outrage.
1
Howard J 27 Jul 2016
In reply to NeilMac:

I clicked on the link. The very first sentence explains that "climbers are not the only people who climb mountains". That very clearly acknowledges that the terms "climb" and "climbers" are strongly associated with rock climbing. The claims further down that "Climb doesn't mean climbing" and that "we all climb things" is utterly unconvincing. The very fact that they feel it necessary to explain themselves to hillwalkers proves the point.

If I were a novice hillwalker given the choice of joining Climb Britain or the Rambler's Association, I would think that, based on the names, the latter more closely represents my interests.

It's particularly disappointing if this has been done to pursue Sports Council funding for competition climbing, which I suspect the majority of the BMC's members couldn't care less about.

I can understand that "Mountaineering", with its connotations of beards and missing toes, may not encompass all aspects of the modern sport, but "Climb" seems to be even narrower and excluding.

I foresee a lot of confusion in alpine huts when guardians fail to recognise the new logo and refuse the discount.

neilh 27 Jul 2016
In reply to captain paranoia:
Then like me you must wonder what on earth the BMC is doing supporting a bike manufacturer......................................or the British Milers Club ( look them up)...or a piece of software ( a $2 billion US company)....or the Business Marketing Collective ( I kid you not)...................or the British Maths Colloquium

All with equal views on BMC.

Time for a change.
Post edited at 09:18
9
UKB Shark 27 Jul 2016
In reply to Trangia:

> If you think the change is superficial that's your opinion, many don't agree with you.

> In this case going to Area Meetings wouldn't have done you much good because the proposal to change the name/rebrand had not been sent to them! The membership has been duped, that's the reason for the outrage.



Really? The elected Council reps, elected by the Area Meetings, gave a standing ovation or something close to it when the "Climb Britain" name change was announced.

Sounds like you voted for the wrong Council Rep
10
Offwidth 27 Jul 2016
In reply to dpmUK:

Interested parties shouldn't be attending area meetings to be appreciated (even though your attendance was and, despite your odd impressions, your contributions were) you attend to be informed and get involved in the organisational remit (mainly democratic input to decisions and access issues and meeting the people who also care about these things). A good bit of effort has been made over the years to avoid cliquiness but its inevitable that when dealing with serious issues with passionate views, usually in a pub, occasionally some newer attenders can get intimidated (I shudder to think what you would have made of Ken in full flow) but if you care, you should stay (not go away and sulk because someone disagreed with you). Area meetings are certainly not like a web forum where there is time for everyone to say what they like on everything, however wise or naive their points may be.

Like Shark says, there is a strong wiff of faux outrage here... I bet more than half the people making the most noise here are not even individual members let alone even irregular attenders at area meetings.

The branding issue isn't finished yet, I'm sure Dave has learnt a hard lesson in the importance of wider consultation. I don't like the new brand, but I'm rather allergic to marketing output, that all too commonly these days looks like bullshit (despite recognising the need for proper market intelligence). I certainly won't be signing either of the two (!? ) petitions as the issues are more complicated. An EGM is the democratic route for proper discussion before considering reversing unwanted change; and even then, if Climb Britain is used for promotional reasons and as a sport umbrella with the BMC retained to deal with the likes of politicians and access, I'll swallow the nasty medicine and vote for the change.
7
La benya 27 Jul 2016
In reply to ukb shark:

what are you on about? there is no need for people to be a member of the BMC. you can quite happily climb your who life without ever thinking about them, and yet people do join. they pay money to support their work and be a part of the organisation. this is them caring. people dont go to meetings? so what. people pay for something that they deem to be of value. if that value changes then they wont be paying/ caring.

as for 'its just a name change!'.... no, it isnt. its the BMC getting funding from a different place. this means they will have to do differnt things. that means changing the focus of their resources. that means essentially changing from what they were set up to do, to whatever sport england what them to be. which is a medal factory.

theres nothing wrong with supporting comp climbing and aiming for medals, but why subvert an already established organisation to do so?
1
StuDoig 27 Jul 2016
In reply to spidermonkey09:

> In reply to UKC/UKH News



> As far as democracy goes, recent events have convinced me that it's often better to rely on elected representatives to make decisions like this. They understand the issues involved much better than you or I can because it's their job, they spend their time doing it. So I don't agree that we should have been consulted. People never vote for name changes until it's too late and the problem is unfixable anytime soon.

In this case I think that your wrong (though perhaps not on more complex issues). the MCofS has also just changed it's name - but consulted their membership both on the fact they were changing the name (much the same justification as BMC are using) and on their proposed new name "Mountaineering Scotland". The result for them is the new name / rebranding they wanted and none of the kickback that the BMC have brought upon themselves by doing it all in the dark under the guise of "commercial sensitivity" or "domain names".

I genuinely believe that had they spoken with their membership they'd be in the same place as the MCofS / Mountaineering Scotland now (assuming they listened to feedback on how bad the new branding is) - i.e. a few people upset at the change as they don't see it as necessary but the bulk of members would be happy enough. Or at least not unhappy enough to kick up a fuss. Including people in a decision that affects them makes a HUGE difference to how they feel about the decision.

Instead now we've a huge and almost entirely negative thread, a re-branding being born in resentment from a large portion of members, online petitions protesting against it and even talk of EGMs to prevent the change from happening. Not a great start.

This is especially bad as with the local rep network the BMC has (no such thing in the MCofS), it's got a perfect mechanism to consult with it's members. Had it used it, and put name change on the agendas, then I'd bet there would have been high turn outs. If not, then folk can't complain if the can't be bothered to turn up! Instead, sneaking it into some of the area meets, not on the agenda so no-one knew about it and with no details feels to most like a deliberate attempt to hide it whilst claiming to have consulted.

As to the re-branding. Just awful. Even getting away from the fact that I genuinely can't think of anyone who describes walking up a hill as climbing it. It's a horrible MS Word Clipart style image with terrible text and from the team GB style colouring and feel I see why there are suspicions that they've sold their soul for Olympic gold. The triple mountain image has been done to death by other groups over the years (including 1 climbing club I was in) too. Far from fresh and exciting.

I think it fails too for those that do consider them selves mountaineers rather than climbers it does feel like they've been bumped to the side esp when you look at the "climb rock, Climb hills, climb walls" conclusion in the how it happened pdf. Straight off, none of the images or words capture mountaineering. I think mountaineering works far better as a catch all term as it does include walking, rock climbing, bouldering (originally why font was developed afterall!). Indoor climbing less so admitadly (probably why MCofS created the CLIMB Scotland subsidiary group to focus on indoor, sport and comp climbing - which it does well).

So I guess the conclusion is that like most I've no real objection to re-branding (As a member I'm happy with the MCofS exercise for example), but the way it's been done by the BMC was a huge mistake. No meaningful consultation on the principle, and none at all on the actual logo / branding is far from democratic and as we can see from this and all the other threads has resulted in a totally unnecessary sh*tstorm / backlash. Poor show BMC.

Cheers,

Stu


La benya 27 Jul 2016
In reply to ukb shark:

> Sounds like you voted for the wrong Council Rep

well yeah, that's apparent! what was your point?
r0x0r.wolfo 27 Jul 2016
In reply to JHiley:
I agree, if I was a landowner I'm not if I'd give 'climb britain' much of my time. As Dave says it's probably a 'grower' but surely that's not the point of a name. A name shouldn't need a lengthy tagline or several articles stressing that the BMC has not forgotten about walkers.

I think the sensible option is a split, use Climb Britain for competition related things, and where appropriate, public awareness but both the name and logo of the BMC should be kept for membership services and advocacy. Change the logo for 'CB', particularly the font used for Climb, to something derivative of the original BMC logo. Job done.

Next time BMC, shortlist some names, buy the relevant domain names cheaply, and ask the membership what they think in a advisory rather than binding fashion. Domain trolls are a weak excuse.

Also try to keep some control of the process: Sport England paying you to complete change your name and branding is absolutely not on. It's very definition of 'sell out', maybe take a little more thought and do some research into who you would want to hire to look at this, rather that just taking £25k for the fun of it and assuming because it's more than you'd pay they'll actually act in the best interests of the BMC as a whole, not just the Sport side of it.
Post edited at 09:40
UKB Shark 27 Jul 2016
In reply to mark_wellin:

I havent got time to discuss this as going out climbing but more than happy to talk about your misapprehensions at the next Area Meet if you are Peak based. Otherwise bring it up at your local area Meet. It is a trivial issue so dont totally commandeer the agenda.

15
Trangia 27 Jul 2016
In reply to ukb shark:

Are you saying that the name change proposal of 18 May was known to the Areas before the announcement? If so why haven't you been correcting what others have been saying throughout this thread? Most folk say that the first they heard of this was when it was announced on Monday.

Please expand because you are the first one to mention this.
Offwidth 27 Jul 2016
In reply to ukb shark:
Elected? Things are occasionally so bad that we had to use THOSE photos to ensure someone 'volunteered' to be an NC rep ;-) (I should be clear that is a joke but sometimes not so far from the truth). Oh how much climbers care! This is from the Peak area where we average over 50 attendees per meeting. Climbing suffers a malaise of the modern world: so quick to see internet bitching about rights with little thought about responsibilities.
Post edited at 09:37
1
Offwidth 27 Jul 2016
In reply to Trangia:

We only knew a possible rebranding was ongoing.
1
Trangia 27 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:
So ukbShark's response is really a Red Herring isn't it?

Attending Area Meeting wouldn't have made the anyone aware of what had been proposed on 18 May.
Post edited at 09:45
Offwidth 27 Jul 2016
In reply to mark_wellin:

If more people joined they might have less need for the money from the likes of Sports England. The vast majority of climbers don't bother and even some who care let membership lapse. The BMC are one of the most democratic organisations I've been a member of (an EGM can completely reverse this decision) and seem to me to be doing doing really positive innovative things in their main areas of interest (like purchasing important access affected crags !). Not everything is perfect but a lot of the reason for faults is they are stretched a little thin.
1
La benya 27 Jul 2016
In reply to ukb shark:

perfect response from someone that doesn't have a response. if its a misapprehension then its due to poor communication and marketing of this re-brand.

what you say about the reps supposedly loving the new logo/ name doesnt sit with what others (Misha) have said. potentially your peak-centric view of the climbing world?

Have fun climbing mate.

La benya 27 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

if youre worried about membership numbers, i would have thought not pissing off alot of your established members would be quite a high priority.

not all money is equal though. free reign within a remit outlined by your membership is surely more favourable than having to jump through a very limited (olympic) ring.
Offwidth 27 Jul 2016
In reply to Trangia:

Shark looks like a mild mannered man if you see him for the first time ... you have no idea what is coming ;-). The rebrand from the area perspective was like a traction engine approaching ones house but just round the corner out of sight. If you were sleeping off a heavy night, or not there, you might have missed it.

Don't get me wrong.. until its clear from evidence otherwise I'd strongly prefer Climb England to be used alongside the BMC identity, not replacing it.
1
Rob Parsons 27 Jul 2016
In reply to Howard J:

On this particular point:

> I foresee a lot of confusion in alpine huts when guardians fail to recognise the new logo and refuse the discount.

BMC membership - or, that is, a BMC membership card - does not entitle you to a discount in any case. For that, you need an additional reciprocal rights card.
Offwidth 27 Jul 2016
In reply to mark_wellin:
Members are always free to cut off their noses to spite their faces. I'm a regular BMC volunteer making observations, I'm not an employee or official of the BMC. I don't like the way the rebrand has been handled and can fully sympathise with those feeling upset about this, but the wider fuss made here by some is ridiculous.
Post edited at 09:58
2
JoshOvki 27 Jul 2016
In reply to ukb shark:
> Such mass passion and outrage. But it rings phoney when the local area meets have such piss poor attendance.

Perhaps the BMC should focus more on engaging its current members than trying to attract new people that appear to have no desire to climb outside anyway.
Post edited at 10:02
La benya 27 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

its not cutting their own nose off if the suggestion that the new funding will affect how the BMC does its work, and what work it does. Its a legitimate way of asserting pressure on an organisation that is supposed to represent you, and now doesn't

Like you said, i only really hate the way this was done, the god awful font and logo, and the actual name picked (although i can see it working just fine). the idea of a modern name, potentially to remove comfusion of 'mountaineering council' and to entice new members is all good in theory. but not if its because someones dangled some money in front of them and said 'jump'.
digby 27 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Just comparing the logos side by side on the BMC site. Is there anything more weary than painting a logo in the Union Flag colours? Such a cliché.
And it looks more like a logo for sailing.
Offwidth 27 Jul 2016
In reply to mark_wellin:
Nothing has changed yet. If you really feel that strongly about the plans, rejoin the BMC and get together with like minded people and call an EGM.
Post edited at 10:08
Tyler 27 Jul 2016
In reply to mark_wellin:

> as for 'its just a name change!'.... no, it isnt. its the BMC getting funding from a different place. this means they will have to do differnt things. that means changing the focus of their resources. that means essentially changing from what they were set up to do, to whatever sport england what them to be. which is a medal factory.
The BMC already gets money from sport England. What do you know that the BMC CEO doesn't as he's already said nothin will change? Given the amount of sounding off you've been doing I imagine you are privy to some info through your work with the BMC.
As for medal factory you've obviously not been reading, Sport England have nothing to do with the Olympics

> theres nothing wrong with supporting comp climbing and aiming for medals, but why subvert an already established organisation to do so?
In what way is it being subverted? They have been supporting comps for years
RupertD 27 Jul 2016
In reply to mark_wellin:
> its not cutting their own nose off if the suggestion that the new funding will affect how the BMC does its work, and what work it does. Its a legitimate way of asserting pressure on an organisation that is supposed to represent you, and now doesn't

Just to correct this point that you have raised several times, there is no new funding. The rebrand has nothing to do with funding. There is no additional funding for rebranding. Sport England haven't asked us to rebrand. None of the current funding is contingent on a rebrand. Sport England don't provide Olympic funding. No money has been dangled in front of anyone. No pressure to rebrand was asserted by any outside agency. There is no change of core values.
Post edited at 10:16
La benya 27 Jul 2016
In reply to Tyler:

'supporting' comps hasnt extended to actually putting out a full team or hosting a round of an international competition for years, so their support is really actually rather limited.

sport england dont fund sports that dont create realistic medal opportunities. read up on the farce of basketballs funding after the disappointment of 2012.

i don't know anything further because the CEO has decided not to mention anything further. however from the experiences of other sports mentioned by countless people above (kayaking, basketball etc) sport englands involvement beyond base level funding always has a proviso of 'medals, medals, medals'. the fact that the BMC got 'free' money from SE specifically for a rebrand, shows that they want to exert some influence on what the BMC does and is to its members
La benya 27 Jul 2016
In reply to RupertD:

what? the BMC got 25k specifically for the rebrand
sports england have historically only given additional funding to sports where there are realisitc medal chances, and then removed it when the sport fails to do so.
sports england specifically asked the BMC to rebrand by giving money specifically for a rebrand.
pebbles 27 Jul 2016
In reply to herbe_rouge:

But a lot of market research is poorly designed bollocks. I often fill the things in, but then find the options meaningless, irrelevant or skewed towards a particular initial assumption (a bit like those undergraduate questionnaires about climbing and thrill seeking). A recent one I looked at kept asking me if I was more likely to do business with a company based on a choice of four logos. It was nonsense - my choice is never based on the logo, its based on other things like the product, price, company reputation and whether its an independent shop! But whichever one of those options I picked would then go into the survey as objective, measurable data showing a particular preference as having an impact on my choice. And this would be untrue.
RupertD 27 Jul 2016
In reply to mark_wellin:
No we didn't get given any money to rebrand. Sport England paid for some consultancy. In the same way that me giving you some legal advice nominally worth £x isn't the same as me giving you £x.

You are also confusing Sport England with UK Sport who provide Olympic funding.
Post edited at 10:20
3
La benya 27 Jul 2016
In reply to RupertD:

oh, so how much did the new logo and name cost the membership then?
Sceptical Bastard 27 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

As so many others have said Dave's thoughts are a bit late now - horse, stable door etc.

FWIW, I think the re-naming is a clumsy genuflection to the tyranny of 'relevance'. It is ungrammatical, simplistic and excludes traditional areas of BMC concern such as mountain and hill walking - we are not all climbers.

Fail
La benya 27 Jul 2016
In reply to RupertD:

uk sport and sport england are sister organisations, both funded by the lottery. one focuses on grass roots, one focuses on elite, but their purposes are aligned.
Marek 27 Jul 2016
In reply to ukb shark:

> A change of name is about as superficial a change as things get yet it is the thing that has got most people up in to a lather related to the BMC...

I think you missed the point. Although the initial reaction was dislike of the new branding, the serious issue was the motivation behind the change and the way it was brought in. Those are not trivial or superficial issues.
Tyler 27 Jul 2016
In reply to mark_wellin:

> 'supporting' comps hasnt extended to actually putting out a full team or hosting a round of an international competition for years, so their support is really actually rather limited.
Yes it is, what's your point? You want them to support it more or less?

> sport england dont fund sports that dont create realistic medal opportunities. read up on the farce of basketballs funding after the disappointment of 2012.
i just read up and discovered that UK Sport (they of the basketball farce) and Sport England are different organisations, I suggest *you* read up.

> i don't know anything further because the CEO has decided not to mention anything further. however from the experiences of other sports mentioned by countless people above (kayaking, basketball etc) sport englands involvement beyond base level funding always has a proviso of 'medals, medals, medals'.
Obviously countless other people are as ill informed.

the fact that the BMC got 'free' money from SE specifically for a rebrand, shows that they want to exert some influence on what the BMC does and is to its members.
What's Sport England's remit (now we've established "medals, medals, medals") could it be to help out well run representative bodies of sports with high participation rates? If so that seems to be what it's done here

2
herbe_rouge 27 Jul 2016
In reply to pebbles:

> But a lot of market research is poorly designed bollocks.

I couldn't agree more. One could be forgiven for gaining the impression that that the BMC paid £25000 for exactly that. My point was that it is possible to commission empirical research with appropriate sampling techniques and a relatively sound quantitative approach for that money – many organisations do, it appears to be the case that the BMC did not.

La benya 27 Jul 2016
In reply to Tyler:

> Yes it is, what's your point? You want them to support it more or less?

i dont want BMC funding diverted from what it does currently to this new focus.

> i just read up and discovered that UK Sport (they of the basketball farce) and Sport England are different organisations, I suggest *you* read up.

see previous post. i mixed the names, apologies. however they are aligned organisations. funding for grassroots is in correlation to the likelihood of medals from elite



Tyler 27 Jul 2016
In reply to mark_wellin:

> i dont want BMC funding diverted from what it does currently to this new focus.
What new focus?

> see previous post. i mixed the names, apologies. however they are aligned organisations. funding for grassroots is in correlation to the likelihood of medals from elite
No, you made the point about Basketball funding being cut by Sport England, it wasn't therefore one of the pillars of your argument is bogus, the rest are, as yet undocumented. (Unless 'wha, wha I don't like it' is an argument).

By the way, how are they aligned, do they share a board? A constitution? Do they have to approve each others policies? Does one fund the other? Genuine question, I don't know but to be sister organisations, as you called them, some of these must be a yes

5
Ian W 27 Jul 2016
In reply to mark_wellin:

however they are aligned organisations. funding for grassroots is in correlation to the likelihood of medals from elite.

No. Wrong. Sport England deal with mass participation / participation increase. UK Sport are the medals lot. And I would dearly love them to be even remotely aligned. It would make life so much easier for national teams (not just climbing).

Ian W
Chair, BMC / Climb Britain Comps Committee.
Simon Caldwell 27 Jul 2016
In reply to Martin Haworth:

> The problem with threads like this is that they aren't representative in any way

Very true. But these ones are much more one-sided than pretty much any other I can remember, both in terms of comments and Likes/Dislikes. The response has been the same everywhere, overwhelmingly against the change - including the BMC site (where it's very rare for anyone to comment about anything).

> I think the tone of some of the responses to Dave Turnbull have been extremely unpleasant.

Not by normal UKC standards ;-)

> Let's keep it civilised.

I think most people have been?
fred99 27 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

> Yes, Sport England paid for the branding work.

And now, as is usual for them, Sport England will move to control the organisation, including telling us how much fees shall be, what it should be spent on, and will even have you amend the constitution so that the membership no longer have any say at an AGM.
It will then be run as if it's a subsidiary of Sport England - for which only the politicians in government have any influence.
1

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.