Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Talkback: BMC Rethink On Climb Britain Rebrand?

  1. #1
    Initiate zero's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    504
    I don't think this is due to inherent resistance to change from the vast majority. This is about the way the re-branding was badly handled, the poor choice of name and design, the lack of proper consultation even at regional meets etc. There are very real and significant issues raised by many members more lucid than I that the BMC even now seem to be steamrollering over.

    On a personal level I don't think the Climb Britain is a great choice of name and certainly doesn't reflect a professional organisation or seem in any way inclusive. On the face of it a name change doesn't mean much for sure (in which case some may argue, why change it). There are easy ways forward in all this as Mountaineering Scotland have shown ('Climb Scotland' is for young people). It would be wise for the BMC to consider these very valid views otherwise the real risk is that many will become alienated or move their membership to MS, thus voiding the very purpose of the name change.

    Yes there are more important issues out there in the world but a membership of an organisation should be given a voice.

  2. #2
    Widdler
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    9
    " One this is certain though: climbers are some of the most cussed and argumentative people on earth, so don't expect the issue to go away any time soon. "

    Utter rubbish. I know it was meant in a light hearted way but Climbers are some of the nicest & most laid back people you could meet. They also tend to be individual & free thinking though & don't take lightly to being hearded or to trendy B/S.



  3. #3
    Widdler
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    9
    " One this is certain though: climbers are some of the most cussed and argumentative people on earth, so don't expect the issue to go away any time soon. "

    Utter rubbish. I know it was meant in a light hearted way but Climbers are some of the nicest & most laid back people you could meet. They also tend to be individual & free thinking though & don't take lightly to being hearded or to trendy B/S.

  4. #4
    Widdler
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    9
    "Resistance to change" That old mantra of self styled progressives that can't think of anything more substantial to argue on merit. Typically can't see forward for fear of glancing backward and therefore largely destined to repeat errors of history in the name of progress.

  5. #5
    Widdler Oliver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    17


    At a time when 'heritage' (especially of the fusty variety) trendily confers extra cultural gravitas, this news flummoxed me.ButI guess this is missing the point - some branding agency gave a good sales pitch to a credulous BMC management.

    Perhaps 'Climb' is seen as more 'inclusive', but then why not simply compress the existing name and have a still recognisable 'British Mountain Council' or 'British Mountaineering Club'?

    Perhaps we can meet half way? I suggest the descriptive 'British Mumble Climb'!

  6. #6
    Widdler
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    9


    This article is a pretty good summing up of the sorry situation overall though.

  7. #7
    Ultra King Peter Clinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    8,252


    The organisation's answer is that the name is slightly fusty and one of the reasons that 'only 10,628 of 82,536 members are under 25'.

    What I'd like to see is a profile of the membership age and a Clueful statistician tocomment.There are plenty of distribution models where 1 in 8 at that age range would be entirely expected and reasonable.

    Since it's mainly adults parting annually with money we're talking about, I suspect (perhaps naively) that what people perceive they get (stuff like insurance and information) is a bit more important than the name and logo on the T-shirt.

    Looking back over the many moons to which I was that young, it strikes me that the stuff you get for your money isn't generally stuff I had spare money for in those days, being more interested in stuff like a better rack, and beer.

    In other words, I'm not really surprised under 25 membership is "only" 1 in 8, and don't see it's necessarily (a) a problem or (b) anything that will change by wasting time and money calling themselves something notionally more hip and trendy than the BMC.

    Pete.

  8. #8
    Initiate zero's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    504


    Very good point Pete, agreed. In fact the UK population of 15-24s is 13.1% according to government stats... Not exactly far off the 12.9% in the BMC. Presuming very few 10-14s are members, I'd say (considering your good points) that's actually a very high proportion of under 25s in membership! Which in itself shows that this can't be a reason for the change, despite the PR waffle!

  9. #9
    Initiate zero's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by Oliver View Post

    At a time when 'heritage' (especially of the fusty variety) trendily confers extra cultural gravitas, this news flummoxed me.ButI guess this is missing the point - some branding agency gave a good sales pitch to a credulous BMC management.

    Perhaps 'Climb' is seen as more 'inclusive', but then why not simply compress the existing name and have a still recognisable 'British Mountain Council' or 'British Mountaineering Club'?

    Perhaps we can meet half way? I suggest the descriptive 'British Mumble Climb'!
    Ha! I honestly think the change was well intentioned and for some good reasons (which I don't find compelling at all).But this doesn't justify the change or the way it has been handled and doesn't seem to be very becoming of the BMC. I think the way ahead is simply to use Climb Britain for a scheme or promotion. I know the BMC will remain as an entity but to change over completely to something so poor isn't helpful.

    At the same time I hope this encourages all of us to get involved more, get out there more and be part of solutions out in the mountains and crags etc. I realise it's all too easy for people like me to hide behind an online identity and talk and I want to put my actions where my mouth is

  10. #10
    ‹bermensch Trevor DC Gamble's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom, Tunbridge Wells area.
    Posts
    4,894


    Great thread here guys! Nice to see we may well be headed for a happier ending on this one, than first expected!
    Trevor DC Gamble

  11. #11
    Widdler Oliver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    17


    I've belatedly realised that the BMC's management has committed a far greater crime!

    The 'Climb Hills' poster callously displays a mirror image of the sublime vista of Lofoten's Kirkefjord. (Kirkefjord! Is this not a sacrilegious villainy?)

    I present a photograph (Reinebriggen beautiful Panorama) to photographic evidence for comparison - look to the left hand side:





  12. #12
    Widdler Oliver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    17





    And compare!

  13. #13
    ‹bermensch Trevor DC Gamble's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom, Tunbridge Wells area.
    Posts
    4,894
    Trevor DC Gamble

  14. #14
    Super Moderator captain paranoia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,962


    I don't think this is due to inherent resistance to change from the vast majority. This is about the way the re-branding was badly handled

    In my case, it's because I simply do not believe that rebranding is the answer, whatever the question is (and the BMC haven't been very forthcoming on what they think the question is).

    I think it will reduce and dilute awareness of the BMC, whilst costing time, money and effort to implement, all of which could be better spent on doing more of what the BMC do.

    Reading the responses from BMC officers on UKC, I fear that the lure of filthy sponsorship and funding lucre for competitive climbing really is a significant part of that undisclosed 'question'.

    I hate pointless bullshit 'initiatives', and this has all the hallmarks of classic bullshit.

  15. #15
    Ultra King Peter Clinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    8,252


    I hate pointless bullshit 'initiatives', and this has all the hallmarks of classic bullshit. No, No, it's New! Improved! Bullshit...

  16. #16
    Initiate zero's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by captain paranoia View Post

    I don't think this is due to inherent resistance to change from the vast majority. This is about the way the re-branding was badly handled

    In my case, it's because I simply do not believe that rebranding is the answer, whatever the question is (and the BMC haven't been very forthcoming on what they think the question is).

    I think it will reduce and dilute awareness of the BMC, whilst costing time, money and effort to implement, all of which could be better spent on doing more of what the BMC do.

    Reading the responses from BMC officers on UKC, I fear that the lure of filthy sponsorship and funding lucre for competitive climbing really is a significant part of that undisclosed 'question'.

    I hate pointless bullshit 'initiatives', and this has all the hallmarks of classic bullshit.
    What has been disappointing, in addition to the re-branding malarkey, has been the responses from some (not all) at the BMC. It has more than a hint of fait accompli and a glib dismissal of very relevant concerns from so many. The quickly printed 'FAQ' type stuff and articles from some of the BMC team hastily whittled off to justify the change is perhaps as telling as the lack of proper consultation. It reminds me of how big business acts and not a membership-based organisation. I recognise the BMC are in a difficult position in some ways but tt's really disappointed me and caused a lot of mistrust from people who want to support the BMC but now wonder if they can. I think it's no accident the re-branding has been presented not long before Sport Climbing got into the Olympics officially.

    But I must re-iterate, I really appreciate the BMC and what they do. I don't want to see it torn apart in any way etc. But I wish they would simply listen. Had they done so initially, all of this could have been avoided. A lesson for us all in leadership!

  17. #17
    Ultra King That bastard Skip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor DC Gamble View Post

    Great thread here guys!....


    A parody of Private Eye's parody

    Bogbrush: "Great stuff guys!"

  18. #18
    ‹bermensch Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    3,279


    This is probably what happened...

    Now that climbing on plastic is an Olympic sport and a lot of the kids who enter climbing competitions don't really venture into the mountains / join the BMC - I imagine the name change was:

    1. to encourage (force) said kids (or their parents) to join the organisation if they want to keep entering "official" competitions and have a chance of representing their country or region (like England Athletics and Triathlon England do) and...

    2. to pre-empt another organisation starting up and becoming the authoritative body on competitive climbing and hence securing the lucrative funding from Sport England. Mountaineering isn't an Olympic sport after all.

  19. #19
    Ultra King Peter Clinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    8,252


    Up to a point. For 2.above the Olympic lot work with existing setups, which would be the UIAA (Union International des Associations d'Alpinisme) and as their name suggests that's a collective of existing organisations. And the BMC is already there for that aspect.

    For 1., though the Olympic announcement was made after this I imagine they had a pretty good inkling, and I think the reasoning there seems quite possibly on the money. Having had the sproggen do cycle sport, where to race you need a license that comes with BC/SC membership, and Judo (same except it's Judo Scotland) that does seem to be how they work it.

    Pete.

  20. #20
    Initiate zero's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    504
    I'm really pleased to see that the BMC is now listening to members with a great response from Rehan Siddiqui - https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-and-cli...ain-next-steps. I'd encourage every BMC member (who feels one way or another) to get involved at their next local meet or if you're a member, you can email the BMC with your details and opinion.

Similar Threads

  1. Talkback: BMC To Change Its Name To Climb Britain
    By More-On in forum Article talkback
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 03-08-2016, 02:15 PM
  2. Talkback: Britain's Best Outdoor Towns
    By Kinley in forum Article talkback
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 30-11-2013, 06:20 PM
  3. Talkback: Britain On Foot - What's That All About?
    By Charles Ross in forum Article talkback
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-07-2013, 11:22 AM
  4. Talkback: How Much To Climb Everest... Eeek!
    By Jon Sparks 2 in forum Article talkback
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 25-01-2012, 02:18 PM
  5. Talkback: Vote For Britain's Greatest Living Hill Master
    By Nick Kennedy 2 in forum Article talkback
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-02-2011, 10:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •