The CTC - is it vulnerable?

[gaz]

So the fact that we have only 20 more members now means a heck of a large number have either move out of the area or have simply lapsed

If from 1187 members 200 chose not to renew (I'm ignoring the possibility that anyone simply moved out of the area), then 83% chose to stay with the CTC. I think that's a heck of a large number compared to the 17% that did not.

There has always been membership turnover. Is it worse than in other cycling organisations? Is it worse than in previous years?

If it is then there is a good reason to invest time and resource into understanding why and seeking to remedy it.

. . . CTC Council is beginning the process of a new 5 year strategy and competition from British Cycling and their loss leader offers are part of the picture. But CTC Membership is booming. . .

Seems that the matter is in hand.

[Edwards]

Content removed

[Si]

OK, we are getting a bit het up over nothing here I think.

Edwards, I believe Jimmy's comment was directed at Karen not you - he has just made a mess of the quotes.

Jimmy, no one is jumping down your throat so please cool down a bit. And be careful with your use of quotes.

Karen, re your comment "I'd have thought you knew about that system." while it might not have meant to have been abrasive, it was a bit open to interpretation. My policy is always to assume ignorance in others - that way you are not disappointed if you have to then explain things.

So let's keep with the reasoned and civil debate please.

[Si]

Jimmy I will not lower myself to comment on your tone. To my best belief I have never made a reply to so.

I was stating a fact. I can no longer afford the CTC fees.

If you open your post with a quote, or part of a quote, from another post then are you not replying to that post? and did you not open your post with a partial quote from Karen Sutton?

As to your other point people who treat me with respect are treated with respect.

Jimmy, again, please cool it - your first statement here is so nebulous as to invite further annoyance. As for your second statement - I would advise you to take your own advice. Any more of this nonsense from anyone and it'll be binned.

[Karen Sutton]

So the fact that we have only 20 more members now means a heck of a large number have either move out of the area or have simply lapsed

If from 1187 members 200 chose not to renew (I'm ignoring the possibility that anyone simply moved out of the area), then 83% chose to stay with the CTC. I think that's a heck of a large number compared to the 17% that did not.

There has always been membership turnover. Is it worse than in other cycling organisations? Is it worse than in previous years?

If it is then there is a good reason to invest time and resource into understanding why and seeking to remedy it.

Yes, it is worse than in previous years

[Simon L6]

I suppose the short answer is yes, but. . . CTC Council is beginning the process of a new 5 year strategy and competition from British Cycling and their loss leader offers are part of the picture. .

why are they loss leaders? Third party insurance costs the CTC about £4 per member (and it's available to other clubs at about the same price). Affiliate membership is sold by the CTC at about the same level as the lowest BC membership and is, apparently, making the CTC a healthy profit. I can't believe that the cost of the helpline is anything much - other firms beside RJW offer a similar service for free.

This is the risk the CTC runs - that another organisation will offer the basic 3rd party insurance and rides leaders package and bolt on an e-magazine and some shop discounts (Cyclists Welcome being a pretty poor offering and well capable of being beaten) and do it for the same or even less money than it costs to take out an affiliate membership to the CTC. They would, of course, be appealing to the 90something percent of cyclists who are not presently part of any organisation, but it doesn't take much thinking about to work out that actually the quickest market to get to is the existing membership of BC and the CTC.

[thirdcrank]

[... I can't believe that the cost of the helpline is anything much - other firms beside RJW offer a similar service for free....

Although I've never managed to get anybody to explain to me the details, from my reading of the CTC accounts, the Accident Line actually makes money for the CTC. (I think this is because the 'No win, no fee' arrangement involves taking out an 'after the event' (ATE) insurance policy to indemnify the client against having to meet the other side's costs if the case is unsuccessful. AFAIK, RJW is one of the country's leading providers of collective conditional fee agreements for trades unions etc. Instead of the individual client paying upfront for the ATE policy, it's paid for under the agreement, but then the sponsor of the agreement - in this case the CTC - gets that back with "int'rest and bonus" in the event of the case being successful, which it should be because the whole point of 'no win no fee' is to discourage no-hope legal actions.) If you look at the RJW website Claims Direct, they also offer the service free to non-members.

Looked at down the other end of the telescope, the benefit to the individual CTC member is that they do not have to pay upfront for the ATE insurance, although 'private' clients do not lose out on this even if they lose their claim, because the insurance also includes insurance against losing the ATE premium. (Wake up at the back! )

(As I've said when I've posted on similar lines before, this is my understanding of how it works. If anybody who knows better can correct what I'm saying, I'll be pleased to acknowledge their greater knowledge. And before anybody jumps on me without reading the legal small print: this is neither a criticism of, nor an endorsement for RJW; it's my understanding of how the system works.)

[Simon L6]

that's also my understanding. I was sort of understating the case.

Put it another way - the replacement cost of the 'must-have' items that are included within the affiliated membership is about four quid. There's an admin cost for membership which is about another four quid. The first four quid is pretty much rock-bottom and the second four quid could be improved on. Add in some extras that don't cost the organisation diddly squit like e-mailed newsletters and discounts at shops and you could put together a heck of a package for twelve quid and make money. Goodbye campaigning, goodbye good works.

[Si]

I suppose the short answer is yes, but. . . CTC Council is beginning the process of a new 5 year strategy and competition from British Cycling and their loss leader offers are part of the picture. .

why are they loss leaders? .

possibly some confusion here for those of us that are not au fait with the inner workings - are we saying that these 'loss leaders' are part of the CTC offerings (the impression given by Simon) or part of the BC offerings (as I interpreted David's statement to mean)?

[thirdcrank]

As I understand it, DC was saying that the BCF couldn't offer it at a profit, and SL was querying that since the CTC did make a profit on providing those particular services - mainly third party cover.

Without putting words in his mouth, I think SL's case is that because what the CTC offers in terms of tangible services can be provided so cheaply (apart from a traditionally produced mag) the Club is vulnerable to an organisation run purely on commercial, cost-cutting lines, attracting members with a low-priced membership. The impication is that CTC members are paying a lot for their altruism - even if they don't realise it.

[Si]

cheers TC.

[simonconnell]

[... I can't believe that the cost of the helpline is anything much - other firms beside RJW offer a similar service for free....

Although I've never managed to get anybody to explain to me the details, from my reading of the CTC accounts, the Accident Line actually makes money for the CTC.

...

(As I've said when I've posted on similar lines before, this is my understanding of how it works.)

* I'm Simon, CTC's Independent Financial Advisor and Chair of Investments Committee*

CTC doesn't make a profit on the legal aid scheme - in effecte it's an insurance scheme. The scheme is funded by a sum charged on each case that RJW handles (billed to the defendant, not to the CTC member). Ove time, these contributions allow the scheme to pay the costs of those cases where the member does not win.

Currently this premium is ring-fenced for this purpose. However, because of RJW's strong performance in the cases they take on, the accumulated premiums are growing faster than the expected draw-down rate for lost cases. If this continues, CTC has the ability to re-allocate some of the premium for other purposes.

[simonconnell]

Put it another way - the replacement cost of the 'must-have' items that are included within the affiliated membership is about four quid.

But they're only 'must have' items in your view - some members probably don't want them, and others consider additional CTC services 'must have'.

There's an admin cost for membership which is about another four quid... [which] could be improved on.

If you really believe that to be the case, please let me know how (call me, PM me, e-mail me or post here) because I'd be interested to know how we can deliver the quality of services members want at a lower price. Based on what I heard of a discussion at the last Management Committee, the average interaction time between a member and the call centre is one or two orders of magnitude higher than the commercial average - because members want an in-depth interaction. That costs more than script-based processing run from a call centre in the subcontinent.

Goodbye campaigning, goodbye good works.

Goodbye to a fair portion of the membership....

[thirdcrank]

... Based on what I heard of a discussion at the last Management Committee, the average interaction time between a member and the call centre is one or two orders of magnitude higher than the commercial average - because members want an in-depth interaction. ....

I don't know anything about that discussion or the typical costs of operating call centres, but I'll offer this for free. We had a thread on here entitled "Hell is.." and my contribution was about call centres. There are all sorts of reasons for having a call centre and all sorts of reasons for contacting one. The average length of calls across this 'industry' must vary hugely. I would suggest, however, that if it's a membership joining / renewal operation, there are only two main reasons for prolongued calls: the first is inadequate published info, so people have to ask to find out stuff which ought to be available as FAQs or similar, and the second is people trying to sort out problems. In other words, if the basic call centre function is to ask personal details, bank details, and which form of membership is required, then IMO if a disproprtionate number of callers need to discuss something else, the cause is not chatty cyclists. (Present company excepted )

I've never had to ring so I have no personal experience of the CTC call centre, but the anecdotal stuff can be grim. Bear in mind also, particularly in the context of 'is the CTC vulnerable' the grumblers in any trading organisation are said to be only the tip of the proverbial iceberg and most people simply walk away if they are unhappy. The CTC enjoys a huge fund of goodwill - and it's wrong to assume that the grumblers don't feel a lot of goodwill - but there is always a limit.

And as a sort of post script while I'm in plain talking mode, talking about "in-depth interactions" is the type of expression being lampooned on another thread. If calls to the call centre take two or three times longer than might normally be expected, let's say so because we have a better chance of seeing if there's a problem, identifying the cause, and then doing something about it.

[Edwards]

CTC is it vulnerable?

I tried to make a point earlier, quite a simple one. A lot of people are starting to find the CTC membership rates higher than they can afford.
So any company or organisation that gives a basic service is quite likely to attract some CTC members.
Interestingly BC recon that by joining them at their Ride rate you actually support the 2012 Olympic team. If it is a loss leader how can it do that?