Cycling UK Forum

I know I'm constantly waving the BC flag in this thread but, like most of you I suspect, I can see the potential that CTC has. Although it feels weird to be talking about potential for an organisation founded in 1878.

Here's another example of the difference in the way I'm treated as a member.

Something that really [inappropriate phrase removed]me off recently was getting an email from my councillors. It made a show of imparting some news but given the close proximity of the AGM I suspect it was yet another clumsy attempt at persuading some "yes" votes - there was something akin to that in the email. It's only the second unprompted contact I've had from my councillors since I first joined CTC in 2006 and the first was one of those "yes" propaganda emails in the run-up to the first charity vote. They also informed they had been re-elected to council unopposed in December but that I should consider standing for council in future as its very worthwhile. It's hardly surprising they were elected unopposed as I certainly never received any information that nominations were being sought. So for some reason, rather then me thinking how nice it was to be contacted, it just really wound me up. One of the councillors is Jim Brown who heads-up CTC Stevenage who are a pretty vibrant and successful group by all accounts. You'd think Jim might have taken an interest in a new group starting-up in his region and offered some advice.

As a Sky Ride Leader, my last contact from my local recreational manager was him inviting me for a get-together to chat about the new social groups initiative and to discuss ways to improve things. Oh and he'd pay for the pizza. I make that the fourth such get-together in a year.

horizon wrote:

JT wrote:[
That makes the CTC vulnerable because they need to recruit those people too.

Why do they? I know the answer but I'm suggesting an alternative. It's what I meant about being fixated on product and not focussing on values.

Looking at the age profile of my group, in 10 years time the membership could well have halved if no new recruitment took place.

Si wrote:I would add to that with the CTC's main resource is it's people and their years of experience and enthusiasm.

Just a couple of examples....

How many experienced leisure ride leaders has the CTC got vs how many experienced leisure ride leaders has the BC/Sky got?
And how much experience and knowledge has each of these groups got?

How many grass roots cycle campaigning people has CTC (RTR) got vs how many grass roots cycle campaigning people has BC/SKY got?

How many leisure rides does my local CTC put on (answer = at least one ride on every day except Monday - actually I think about 15 last week) vs how many leisure rides does my local BC / SKY put on (about two a month I think).

In this debate CTC's problem, to my eye, is not that it doesn't have the benefits, but rather that it is not marketing them as well as it could, and (as Simon points out) given that the market place is becoming more competitive the CTC might be over charging a bit.....On the other hand, BC/Sky appear to be running loss-leaders: if it works they'll do great, if it doesn't they could get burned.

We all hear different things coming down from the upper echelons of the CTC. Simon has a little less trust in some of the things he hears, which is understandable. What I hear suggests that these problems are now being admitted and that action is being looked at. Which, to me, is a positive.

Your first point is valid. CTC's greatest resource is the experience and enthusiasm of its membership.

National Office do not provide any help, support, for local clubs to grow and attract new members. There are no guidelines or, even, directives for putting on rides to attract new cyclists/members. They do not offer any incentives for people who volunteer their time to help run local clubs.

Sky Ride Local ride leaders get £45 per ride! They get a free year's membership to BC. Assistant ride leaders (without a first aid qualification) get £35. All ride leaders get free kit - this year a rather nice soft shell jacket and a funky technical tee-shirt, all branded, naturally. Everyone attending a ride gets a Sky Ride bib and takes it home with them. CTC cannot compete with this even if they wanted to. They could go after sponsors/partners in the way BC has with Sky/Fiat/Jaguar.. Oh hang on, the charity thing probably puts a stop to that. And in any case who in their right mind would give our council £millions?

Regarding your other points, I don't know how many RTR reps there are, but I know there isn't one in my area and CTC haven't done much to recruit one.
I know how many rides we put on this week: two. One at the weekend and one on Wednesday. But how many of the 15 in your area were targeted at beginners or were women-only rides? That's a valid comparison until BC's social cycling groups become more established (the initiative only launched a few weeks ago). An initiative, I remind you, that has a full-time employee managing it in addition to the full-time regional recreational cycling managers. Compare that to CTC Member Groups which are looked after on a part-time basis.

Trust me, CTC is very vulnerable.

horizon wrote:

JT wrote:Please could you explain to me the CTC's powerful, marketable values?
Also, which parts of cycling are BC not set up for?

Sure, as long you accept that this is off the top of my head - I'm not writing a report!

Well, let's say that the CTC wants to differentiate itself from BC: the CTC is closer to the the National Trust and BC is closer to the Olympics. The CTC is a political body, BC is a regulatory body. BC is about participation events (maybe), the CTC about individual achievement (maybe). BC is about competitive cycling, the CTC is about cooperation and supporting others. The CTC is about using a bike as a means to an end (exploring the countryside, getting to work), BC is about using the bike as an end in itself (like going round and round in circles on a velodrome).

It may be that BC has enough clout to absorb the CTC but it would never be the real thing - it's not in its DNA. How the CTC markets its values is up to the CTC but I would still say that it has values and that these values are valuable.

Thanks for clarifying. With all due respect I'd say you're out of touch with what BC are up to and that your view of CTC's values is somewhat rose-tinted.

However, this thread is about the CTC's vulnerability to rivals. BC are not going after your typical CTC member. They are targeting people who cycle commute and new or returning cyclists, and doing so in a big way (thanks to the backing of Sky). In other words they are targeting people who've probably never even heard of CTC and wouldn't dream of joining a cycling club. That makes the CTC vulnerable because they need to recruit those people too.

I'm part of both organisations, and trust me, BC do a much better job of this while at the same time offering tons of support (some of it even financial) to the people like me on the ground who are leading the rides that inspire these new members to take cycling seriously enough to join an organisation.

horizon wrote:My 2p worth:

The marketing men have for decades been pointing out that it's values not products that matter. The CTC has a set of powerful, marketable values but it's caught in the headlights of British Cycling, much as in the same way the YHA is transfixed by Travelodge. The CTC needs to get off its bike and get on what that bike used to be used for. It can, if it chooses, reach the parts that British Cycling isn't set up for.

Please could you explain to me the CTC's powerful, marketable values?
Also, which parts of cycling are BC not set up for?

When the volunteers who keep Member Groups running are given free membership, then they can think about giving them out to ***** like Cameron.

Thanks Karen. That's one of the boards I "ignore" so hadn't seen the discussion.

What other place?

CTC's campaigning is very, umm, nebulous though. As a member you have to go looking for what they're up to and often it's just things targeted at cyclists like Stop Smidsy. Before that there was the Safety in Numbers campaign - was that successful? Sure you get the odd comment/quote in a newspaper article attributed to Roger Geffen or Chris Peck but that's hardly campaigning is it?

Back on topic. Look at the age profile of CTC's membership, the public perception of CTC (if they've even heard if it), the way in which local groups are uncooridnated and increasingly marginalised, the increasing cost of membership; compare that to British Cycling (the only real competitor) and for me it's hard to see CTC surviving in the long term. I'm afraid that the charity conversion will only make things worse.

Simon L6 wrote:

JT wrote:It's more than just financial support and benefits though.

BC employ full-time regional managers responsible for recreational cycling. These guys are in regular contact with the local volunteers, arranging feedback meetings (informal affairs where they provide pizza and drinks), and letting everyone know of new developments, opportunties and initiatives. There is a dedicated person managing the new Social Cycling Groups scheme.

CTC hasn't even got a full-time person dedicated to member groups.

I can assure you that as someone who is involved with both organisations , you feel a lot more love from BC.

Well, I'm impressed. Easy on the pizza, though!

I still reckon the best deal for groups is the CTC's affiliated club thingy. Individuals get in for fifteen quid and the club pays fifty quid a year - seventyfive if you're over a certain size. I signed up 225 members last year, of which only about 25 were migrating from full membership.

I'm absolutely sure that the new Chief Exec is going to make member groups a priority

It's a bit late for the pizza warning!

I'm not trying to get you to switch, just illustrating how serious BC are with regard to recreational cycling.
They clearly recognise that they need local knowledge and enthusiasm to get more people cycling and they are taking full advantage of that in return for a few financial incentives. Plus free kit. Did I mention the free kit?

It's more than just financial support and benefits though.

BC employ full-time regional managers responsible for recreational cycling. These guys are in regular contact with the local volunteers, arranging feedback meetings (informal affairs where they provide pizza and drinks), and letting everyone know of new developments, opportunties and initiatives. There is a dedicated person managing the new Social Cycling Groups scheme.

CTC hasn't even got a full-time person dedicated to member groups.

I can assure you that as someone who is involved with both organisations , you feel a lot more love from BC.

Sky Ride Local ride leaders get £45 per ride. Some of the rides are only a few miles long.
Assistant ride leaders (without a current first aid qualification) get £35 per ride.

Breeze (women only) ride leaders don't get paid.

All ride leaders and assistant ride leaders get a year's free membership to BC.

Last summer I got £70 for assisting on two rides in one day totalling 13 miles. On the second ride there was one ride leader and two assistants. Only three punters came out for the ride.

Let's not get sidetracked by liability insurance.

For me, BC have launched a type of organised ride that is potentially in direct competition to the rides my CTC club organises. What's more they are saying that you don't need to join BC to keep going on these rides. I just have to hope that there aren't any BC members locally who want to organise social rides of 40-ish miles because in places like Peterborough there isn't exactly a surplus of cyclists wanting to go on group rides like that. Or there is, and we're just not tapping them into them yet.

Anyway. Imagine you're Joe Bloggs and you can go on an organised ride connected with British Cycling. I've heard of them, Sir Chris Hoy advertises their rides, and that nice Victoria Pendleton. And isn't that baldy bloke something to do with them? The one who gets interviewed all the time whenever British Cyclists do well. Wow they do cycling stuff for everyone and their website is brilliant. I don't have to pay anything to do these rides? Cool.

Now imagine you're Joe Bloggs considering a CTC ride. I've never heard of them... gosh their website is dreadful. Cyclists' Touring Club? I just want to go for a nice ride, I don't want to go camping. Oh I can only go on 5 rides and then I have to join? But I can do the same sort of thing with BC for free for as long as I want.


Yes, the tanks are well and truly parked on the lawn.

I have some more info on BC's Social Cycling Groups and it's very interesting.

There is no membership barrier. Only a BC member can start a group or organise rides but non-members can go on as many rides as they like.
On legal advice, BC say the organiser of a ride is not responsible for the people on the ride. Riders are responsible for themselves and their bikes.

Simon you're wrong about BC insisting upon helmets. I'm a Sky Ride Local ride leader and we have to wear helmets (we're paid by BC so they call the shots) but participants don't have to.

Do you really think BC and CTC (in its current form) are any different in seeing their membership as a source of funding?
Join CTC today and if the local group you're allocated to doesn't get in touch, you'll never hear from anyone at CTC other than if they want you to vote for something at the AGM - there's no pressure put on local groups to actively contact new members.

You mention the quality of the beginner's programme of the SWLDA. That is nothing to do with CTC, the organisation. it's a result of the enthusiasm and dedication of the volunteers at that DA. You'd have more of a point if that was something that was going on at every DA/group and was guided by National Office but the truth is they wouldn't do anything even if every DA in the country only ran all day 100 mile rides with three refreshment stops, compulsory mudguards and cotton-duck panniers.

These new Social Cycling Groups are virtual, they're not clubs. Like The Fridays, they'll be organised online and whether they succeed or fail will largely depend on the quality of the routes chosen by whoever starts off a group, and that person's personality. But any BC member can start off a group. How streamlined is that? Even with all the recent restructuring it's still a pain in the buttock to get a CTC group going (a mandatory role of Welfare Officer anyone?).