CTC rebranding

[Cudzoziemiec]

Rob, just to be clear, I'm not criticising you. I just hear a lot of criticism of riders not fitting in with older models of clubs.

Which is the essence of it. Do the clubs then change to suit the new majority of riders or stick with the dwindling number (or at least proportion...) of members who fit into their old scheme? There's good and bad both ways, seems to me.

[robgul]

Rob, just to be clear, I'm not criticising you. I just hear a lot of criticism of riders not fitting in with older models of clubs.

That's why the word "problem" was in quotes .... it's just a factor ... among many.    The spectrum of cycling needs and desires is so wide that any critical mass almost unachievable. 

Whether one organisation can be all things to all men* would seem doubtful ...although the threads over on the CTC Forum perhaps suggest that British Cycling is making a better fist of it?

Rob

* and women

[David Martin]

The only answer is to get newer riders along to their local club rides (CTC or 'proper' clubs) where they can  learn stuff. However, current trends seem to be away from clubs - they're seen as old-fashioned. Far more appealing to find 3 (equally clueless) mates and sign up for the local charidee ride and/or sportive (according to 'sporting' ambition).

This is one of our growth areas. 'Get fit for the etape or whichever big ride by riding with us' and we are picking up riders (which we need to convert into members). A bit of encouragement and on they go.

[David Martin]

Time poor - cash rich.

We have some riders who seem to have all the time in the world. They think nothing of a gentle 140 mile run up to Ben Lawers and back, via one of the more scenic routes.

Then we have some riders who don't have the time or the talent for that and will do a club run, back early afternoon.

And then we have some who we see occasionally and they get out and ride on the 20 mile midweek runs.

The key is to be welcoming and (as one of th elocal clubs put it int her guidelines for recruitment policy points 1,3,5,7 and 9) Don't be an arse. If they get put down or belittled then they won't come back. If they get encouraged and praised then they will feel accepted, even if their performance is away from where they want it to be.

[TimC]

Time poor - cash rich.

We have some riders who seem to have all the time in the world. They think nothing of a gentle 140 mile run up to Ben Lawers and back, via one of the more scenic routes.

Then we have some riders who don't have the time or the talent for that and will do a club run, back early afternoon.

And then we have some who we see occasionally and they get out and ride on the 20 mile midweek runs.

The key is to be welcoming and (as one of th elocal clubs put it int her guidelines for recruitment policy points 1,3,5,7 and 9) Don't be an arse. If they get put down or belittled then they won't come back. If they get encouraged and praised then they will feel accepted, even if their performance is away from where they want it to be.

All of these are leisure cyclists, and like most leisure activities, the protagonists like to group together in clubs; yet we seem to be bemoaning the lack of accommodation of the utility cyclist. But how many car drivers are in a club? How many feel that their particular commuting route needs a collective organisation of which they should be a member? I'd hazard a guess that the answer is 'none'! I'm pretty sure that most utility cyclists for whom getting on a bike is a means to an end equally feel at best ambivalent to the idea of joining a club, however much they might appreciate those organisations that agitate on their behalf.

BC has gone after the burgeoning MAMIL market to bolster its membership, but hasn't forgotten that the utility sector needs representation. CTC is also doing a reasonable job of representing utility cyclists, but hasn't done that much to widen its potential membership net. Is that a problem? I'm not sure it is if its income is sufficient (and increasing) from its 'charity' activities to fund the representative functions. The club side of CTC will go on as it has for many years, pretty oblivious to all this, so long as their active club members continue to be active an want what the traditional CTC DAs provide.

So, what would a re-branding of CTC achieve? Very little, I think.

[Fab Foodie]

Let's look at this from a slightly different angle ...
New cyclists will inherently be lacking in confidence, both in their mechanical and nav'ing abilities. If they are 'recruited' by watching Chris Froome sending his teammate back to a team-car, that's the type of riding they may well seek out.

CTC (and AUK), whilst providing lots of support to riders, is more about the self-sufficient style of riding - touring without a support wagon, commuting etc.

So the newer cyclist - reading the glossy press or browsing the web - will be drawn towards fully-supported events, which tend to be the BC side of things.

The only answer is to get newer riders along to their local club rides (CTC or 'proper' clubs) where they can  learn stuff. However, current trends seem to be away from clubs - they're seen as old-fashioned. Far more appealing to find 3 (equally clueless) mates and sign up for the local charidee ride and/or sportive (according to 'sporting' ambition).

I think you're probably identifying the "problem" we've had with two local groups/clubs (one is a CTC Member Group) ... an awful lot of the "new cyclists" are  :  Time Poor - Cash Rich .. in other words they can buy smart bikes and all the gear (even with no idea!) - BUT have limited time to spend riding - for a host of reasons - and want to blast along for a couple of hours ... thus tilting the whole cycling thing in yet another direction.

Rob

Is this type of cyclist a problem?

They are if you're in charge of CTC and see a significant potential revenue stream and existing customers dissappearing to BC.

I think mattc's points above are spot-on. 

The nature of cycling as a leisure activity is certainly changing.  The largest growth sector (especially in £ terms) must be the 'MAMIL' (for want of a better shorthand) segment and from what I gather their leanings are wholeheartedly towards BC membership.  Like it or not, they tend to pigeonhole CTC as quaint and old-fashined along with Audax, Carradice, beards & sandals and old farts like me that carry chain splitters and know how to use them.

[David Martin]

MAMILs are not the target for market development - women are. MAMILs are an existing market. The forward thinking are setting up programs to specifically reach out to these groups.

[TimC]

But MAMILs and MAMs are a relatively transitory market - a (welcome) symptom of sport and leisure cycling's current popularity. But that popularity will eventually wane, as these things do; but the need for improvements in the provisions for utility cycling and cyclists will not go away, and must be tackled if we are to achieve a large-scale move from car to bike. In the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany that is where the effort has gone, and it's been rewarded. Sport and leisure cycling exists, but doesn't drive the agenda like it does here - but shouldn't, IMO. It doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things that BC has managed to get more leisure cyclists to join its ranks than CTC has; what matters is what they both do to drive the long-term, sustainable move to human-powered transport - while, of course, not abandoning those who [also] cycle for pleasure.

[PH]

Just what is it people want a national touring club to do?  Apart from financially supporting a national rally, like York, I can't think of anything that isn't either better done on a local level or isn't better done elsewhere.  When I started touring the information gathered and distributed by the CTC was invaluable, now I have Google.   The local groups have been poorly supported, but all the evidence is that this has been recognised and is being addressed.  It's easier than ever to set up a new group or affiliate a club.  And funding is available in addition to the allocation grant for any project you can make a simple case for.  IMO this is the role a national organisation with an interest in touring should be fulfilling, I hope the improvements I've seen over the last five years continue.   If that was all the CTC did it would be a pretty small club, and even as an old school touring cyclist I have to recognise that.  It's a big club with diverse interests, that's good for cycling even is it isn't necessarily the best for me.
BC is riding high after it's major rebranding and name change, bolstered by Murdoch's millions and getting a lot of attention, good, the more positive noise the better.  I saw a recent Skyride in Southampton, there was more there for free than at the £12 to enter Orbital festival I was at the day before. Someone is paying for that and we  have to realise that the golden goose will be off elsewhere the moment it's no longer an advantage for the Murdoch Brands. One of the criticisms of the CTC during the charitee debate was the vulnerability of it's funding, maybe those critics ought to consider the security of BCs finances before praising it so highly.  I suspect if the funds were to reduce, it wouldn't be it's core sports activities that suffered first.   One of the other criticisms during the charitee debate was how it would affect the influence of members on policy, I have no idea how BC make their policy, but there doesn't seem much membership involvement.
I'd support a name change if it was to something that better represented what the CTC do.  I couldn't care less about the winged wheel, it has an historical importance, but it looks of its time and isn't the best emblem to represent the present organisation.  Not only that, nobody knows what it's about.  Try this;  show it to people who don't associate you with cycling and see what they think it is.  When I tried that more thought it had something to do with flying than cycling.

[Bledlow]

Back to the name.

Anyone remember Consignia?

Case closed, IMO.

[PH]

Back to the name.

Anyone remember Consignia?

Case closed, IMO.

Anyone remember Snickers?
What's your point?

[Bledlow]

I thought it was bleeding obvious.

[Speshact]

London Cycling Campaign became much more focused and dynamic after a good consultation exercise with members and a new CEO. Let's hope CTC achieve the same.

CTC need the clarity of purpose that LCC, BC, Sustrans and Cycling Embassy of GB have.

[red marley]

I vote to change the name to "Cyclastia" and automatically bar any members once they reach the age of 30. They could increase the revenue stream by offering cheap loans and incentivise members by offering free iTunes tokens when they renew.

[PH]

I thought it was bleeding obvious.

It isn't.  If anything CTC is the clubs Consignia.  It doesn't say what it is and nobody knows what it means. 
CTC dropped Touring because it was no longer the main focus, it should have given more thought then to a name to replace it.  It's never had the profile to be known as it's initials.
BC dropped Federation from it's name when that was no longer appropriate, it was still left with a great name.
If your point is that some name changes don't work, no shit.  That's an argument for getting it right rather than closing the case, for every example of a poor change I can give you one that's been of benefit to the organisation.   I'll start if you want - Tom Crowther changed to Mercian

[robgul]

Back to the name.

Anyone remember Consignia?

Case closed, IMO.

Anyone remember Snickers?
What's your point?

Just to be pedantic ... I think you mean does anyone remember Marathon? - which morphed into Snickers in the early 1990s - and a after that Opal Fruits became Starburst ... another Mars rebranding exercise

Rob

[PH]

Back to the name.

Anyone remember Consignia?

Case closed, IMO.

Anyone remember Snickers?
What's your point?

Just to be pedantic ... I think you mean does anyone remember Marathon? - which morphed into Snickers in the early 1990s - and a after that Opal Fruits became Starburst ... another Mars rebranding exercise

Rob

Ha, yes you're right, what's in a name.

[Bledlow]

I'm surprised I have to explain this.

CTC has been around since the year dot. It has been associated with cycling since the days when winged wheels were being put on pub walls. They don't say "Cyclists Touring Club", they have the letters C T C on them. It's as old as the full-length name.

Neither CTC nor the Cyclists Touring Club have as high a profile as Royal Mail, but that won't be changed by a change of name. There is no simple way to change the name in the way BCF did without losing what profile it has - unlike BCF/BC.

Any name change would be very risky indeed. A great deal could be lost, & the chance of gaining anything is small.


Tom Crowther/Mercian is irrelevant. Utterly different scale & type of enterprise. He was dealing on a personal level, no doubt with many personal recommendations.

And it wasn't just the choice of name that was wrong in the Consignia case. There was no point in the change at all, regardless of what it was changed to.

BTW, do you really believe that the CTC is capable of coming up with a name so much better that it would not only be good enough to make up for the usual disadvantages of a name change, but would justify the cost?

[PH]

I'm surprised I have to explain this.

CTC has been around since the year dot. It has been associated with cycling since the days when winged wheels were being put on pub walls. They don't say "Cyclists Touring Club", they have the letters C T C on them. It's as old as the full-length name.

Neither CTC nor the Cyclists Touring Club have as high a profile as Royal Mail, but that won't be changed by a change of name. There is no simple way to change the name in the way BCF did without losing what profile it has - unlike BCF/BC.


Tom Crowther/Mercian is irrelevant. Utterly different scale & type of enterprise. He was dealing on a personal level, no doubt with many personal recommendations.

Well it's good that you do have an argument, rather than just some toys to throw about.  It's one I disagree with, I believe it's profile is so low that loosing it would be of little consequence if what it gained was a name that didn't need explaining. 

BTW, do you really believe that the CTC is capable of coming up with a name so much better that it would not only be good enough to make up for the usual disadvantages of a name change, but would justify the cost?

I don't know.  It's a consultation, it's looking into the possibilities, I do really believe that's what is should be doing.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I'd say its profile amongst cyclists is quite high (its appeal may not be, that's a separate matter) but among non-cyclists who ride bikes (utility riders, summer Sunday pootlers, etc) it's much lower.

[Kim]

I'd say its profile amongst cyclists is quite high (its appeal may not be, that's a separate matter) but among non-cyclists who ride bikes (utility riders, summer Sunday pootlers, etc) it's much lower.

I've had several of such ask me what CTC stands for in response to seeing my mudguard sticker.

[mcshroom]

I don't know why they had to change from Bicycle Touring Club

[Kim]

Seems reminiscent of the recent re-branding of the RNID to reflect their change in focus.  Not an inherently bad idea from a campaigning viewpoint, but a source of frustration for everyone else.

I just hope they don't pick a new name that's excessively naff.

[Fab Foodie]

I'd say its profile amongst cyclists is quite high (its appeal may not be, that's a separate matter) but among non-cyclists who ride bikes (utility riders, summer Sunday pootlers, etc) it's much lower.

I've had several of such ask me what CTC stands for in response to seeing my mudguard sticker.

Is that after they'd asked you what mudguards are?

[perpetual dan]

They could take BC's lead and drop one word and call themselves "cyclists' club". Pretty inclusive.

There was a comment about motorists not joining a club upthread. Many motorists are AA or RAC members. Mostly for the breakdown service. But that doesn't stop the AA and RAC campaigning and setting themselves up to "speak for" motorists.