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.