CEO's statement

Discussion of the re-branding of CTC as Cycling UK.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13743
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: CEO's statement

Postby mjr » 23 Feb 2016, 11:39am

SA_SA_SA wrote:why would you need to pay consultants to come up with a name that drops Touring and just has Cycling in the name?

1. You can claim that the consultants have developed a whole snazzy rebranding package around it - which doesn't seem to have foreseen the probability of a leak and is so well-thought-out that you beg volunteers to help implement;
2. You can externalise the blame if it fails and promise not to hire those consultants again;
3. errm? ;-)
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Psamathe
Posts: 10385
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: CEO's statement

Postby Psamathe » 23 Feb 2016, 11:52am

mjr wrote:
SA_SA_SA wrote:why would you need to pay consultants to come up with a name that drops Touring and just has Cycling in the name?

1. You can claim that the consultants have developed a whole snazzy rebranding package around it - which doesn't seem to have foreseen the probability of a leak and is so well-thought-out that you beg volunteers to help implement;
...

The aspect I find disappointing is how unprepared the organisation seems to have been that people have found out about their plans. And change planning should include plans for things like this - which shows a great weakness in the CTC management. I read on another forum that the CEO was appointed on the basis on "managing change" yet seems to have been caught by surprise by something that was "not unlikely".

And then you think back to the way the getting rid of CJ was handled and it raises major questions about capability.

Ian

Bez
Posts: 1196
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: CEO's statement

Postby Bez » 23 Feb 2016, 12:05pm

Philip Benstead wrote:What is wrong with CTC - We are Cycling


Is that the objective of this petition you're seeking? To simply prepend "CTC" to the new name?

What will that achieve, other than propagating a name which surely cannot help the organisation's ability to promote safe, everyday cycling for all? The "Touring" part of the name can only obstruct that, and the "CTC" abbreviation can only serve to wrap that obstruction in a layer of obfuscation.

What is wrong with retaining "Touring" as a subsection of a broader organisation? If the important objective is to achieve safe, everyday cycling for all (as I believe it should be, and as many of your comments suggest you also believe it to be) then, as far as I can see, all your petition would achieve is to interfere with that; whether delaying it significantly or undermining it outright.

If you don't mind me saying, I think it would be worth your while explaining clearly and exactly what you seek to achieve (or what you seek to prevent) and what specific alternative courses of action you propose.

PH
Posts: 7488
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: CEO's statement

Postby PH » 23 Feb 2016, 12:13pm

honesty wrote:Out of interest I showed the old brand (winged wheel) and the new brand to some non cyclists at work.
They said the old brand made them think of old crusties doing heroic rides, and the new one as more family friendly and inclusive. If that's the aim then CUK seems to been heading in the right direction...


When i showed the winged wheel around my workplace a few years ago, most thought it had something to do with the RAF!! Only those who knew I was into cycling thought it had anything to do with that.

PH
Posts: 7488
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: CEO's statement

Postby PH » 23 Feb 2016, 12:24pm

Psamathe wrote:The aspect I find disappointing is how unprepared the organisation seems to have been that people have found out about their plans. And change planning should include plans for things like this - which shows a great weakness in the CTC management. I read on another forum that the CEO was appointed on the basis on "managing change" yet seems to have been caught by surprise by something that was "not unlikely".
And then you think back to the way the getting rid of CJ was handled and it raises major questions about capability.
Ian

Prepared for what? A bit of noise from a tiny proportion of the membership? let's be realistic that's all they will see it as. I think they would have been fully aware of the likely response and weighed it up against their perception of the advantages and written it off. That's not to say I agree, but even if we were to have a poll of the whole club I'd be surprised if the majority didn't decide to leave it to the council by either voting in favour or giving their vote to the Chairman. I think some of those posting here and elsewhere have an inflated idea or the importance these debates amongst a few of us have.
As admin for an affiliated group, I received an email today about all the great things they can offer... coincidence? I don't know.

Psamathe
Posts: 10385
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: CEO's statement

Postby Psamathe » 23 Feb 2016, 12:27pm

Bez wrote:
Philip Benstead wrote:What is wrong with CTC - We are Cycling


Is that the objective of this petition you're seeking? To simply prepend "CTC" to the new name?...

Seems a lot of people think both the name and logo "naff". So I think the petition is to allow the membership to decide on their organisation.

Bez wrote:...
What is wrong with retaining "Touring" as a subsection of a broader organisation? If the important objective is to achieve safe, everyday cycling for all (as I believe it should be, and as many of your comments suggest you also believe it to be) then, as far as I can see, all your petition would achieve is to interfere with that; whether delaying it significantly or undermining it outright....

But there seem no plans to make Touring s "subsection". The announcement has been made and no "introducing a separate Touring subsection".

I also think there is significant feeling that the name/branding change is just furthering other recent changes where the club has effectively been hijacked by others with different interests. Thus a poll of all members would seem very appropriate. Of course, in asking for such a thing seems to leave you open to public abuse from senior CTC management.

Ian

Bez
Posts: 1196
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: CEO's statement

Postby Bez » 23 Feb 2016, 12:43pm

Psamathe wrote:Seems a lot of people think both the name and logo "naff". So I think the petition is to allow the membership to decide on their organisation.


No single aesthetic is going to please everyone (and for what it's worth, I'm no great fan of the aesthetic of the trade mark myself), but that's inevitable. What hasn't been seen yet is the entire branding, just one registered trade mark. It has already been made clear that certain groups won't have to rebrand and as far as I'm aware the organisation is planning to use the CTC heritage in some form or other.

Anyway, is the petition proposing an alternative, or is it just to say "ugh"?

Psamathe wrote:I also think there is significant feeling that the name/branding change is just furthering other recent changes where the club has effectively been hijacked by others with different interests. Thus a poll of all members would seem very appropriate. Of course, in asking for such a thing seems to leave you open to public abuse from senior CTC management.


If that's the motive, then is it the most appropriate course of action to derail activities that seek to enable better progress towards more and safer everyday cycling?

Psamathe
Posts: 10385
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: CEO's statement

Postby Psamathe » 23 Feb 2016, 12:52pm

Bez wrote:
Psamathe wrote:Seems a lot of people think both the name and logo "naff". So I think the petition is to allow the membership to decide on their organisation.


No single aesthetic is going to please everyone (and for what it's worth, I'm no great fan of the aesthetic of the trade mark myself), but that's inevitable. What hasn't been seen yet is the entire branding, just one registered trade mark. It has already been made clear that certain groups won't have to rebrand and as far as I'm aware the organisation is planning to use the CTC heritage in some form or other.

Anyway, is the petition proposing an alternative, or is it just to say "ugh"?

Psamathe wrote:I also think there is significant feeling that the name/branding change is just furthering other recent changes where the club has effectively been hijacked by others with different interests. Thus a poll of all members would seem very appropriate. Of course, in asking for such a thing seems to leave you open to public abuse from senior CTC management.


If that's the motive, then is it the most appropriate course of action to derail activities that seek to enable better progress towards more and safer everyday cycling?

My interpretation of the petition is that it is to allow the membership to have a say in what its club is doing.

Ian

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13743
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: CEO's statement

Postby mjr » 23 Feb 2016, 12:59pm

Bez wrote:as far as I'm aware the organisation is planning to use the CTC heritage in some form or other.

Please could you share what you know of those plans?

If that's the motive, then is it the most appropriate course of action to derail activities that seek to enable better progress towards more and safer everyday cycling?

How does the rebranding itself do that, or what other activities do you know of?

In the longer term, how likely is it that excluding and marginalising active members from the club's decision-making will enable better progress? Having non-cycling people designing infrastructure at most highway authorities isn't exactly working out better!
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Bez
Posts: 1196
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: CEO's statement

Postby Bez » 23 Feb 2016, 1:25pm

mjr wrote:Please could you share what you know of those plans?


I don't know anything of specific plans, but I recall reading stuff somewhere online which was to that effect. I'll see if I can dig it up.

mjr wrote:How does the rebranding itself do that, or what other activities do you know of?


Referring back to an earlier post on this thread,

honesty wrote:Out of interest I showed the old brand (winged wheel) and the new brand to some non cyclists at work.
They said the old brand made them think of old crusties doing heroic rides, and the new one as more family friendly and inclusive. If that's the aim then CUK seems to been heading in the right direction...


I think it's reasonably plain that the branding is more inclusive, and to my mind inclusiveness is at the heart of progress. It's the "cycling/cyclists" thing that I keep mentioning. "Cyclists" is a niche, "touring cyclists" is a niche squared, "CTC" is just opaque, and a stylised pictogram of a wonky bicycle is neither visually appealing nor graphically versatile.

mjr wrote:In the longer term, how likely is it that excluding and marginalising active members from the club's decision-making will enable better progress? Having non-cycling people designing infrastructure at most highway authorities isn't exactly working out better!


I've no idea of the details of the internal politics in question so I'll refrain from airing an opinion on that one ;)

Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: CEO's statement

Postby Bicycler » 23 Feb 2016, 1:55pm

Bez wrote:
mjr wrote:Please could you share what you know of those plans?


I don't know anything of specific plans, but I recall reading stuff somewhere online which was to that effect. I'll see if I can dig it up.

All I've seen is the CEO's statement in the first post of this thread.
Our charity will still legally be registered as the Cyclists’ Touring Club with its charity and companies registrations unchanged. The Cyclists’ Touring Club is not being disbanded. In fact, part of the need for this change is because we hope the new brand will enhance our touring offering. The new name (as I’m sure many of you will now have seen) is ‘Cycling UK’ and the brand ‘we are Cycling UK’ will be adopted as ‘trading name’ of the charity. We are very proud of our heritage and history, and we know that a new name and brand will really help to make our charity even more attractive to many more people.

Now, firstly, I'm going to be incredibly cynical and suggest that he might be being disingenuous. I suggest that the reason the organisation's name will not formally change is absolutely nothing to do with valuing its touring heritage and everything to do with the fact that it would require a change to the Articles of Association, requiring a full quorate vote. As long as it can be passed off as just a change in branding then the council can do it without bothering to consult the membership.

Secondly, to understand the hostility of some, you'll have to understand that a lot of promises were made to people who raised concerns around the time of the charity debate a few years ago. People who suggested that the organisation might change its name or abandon valuable member services were told that they were just scaremongering, but they have largely been vindicated since. I can understand their lack of faith in any new statements.

Thirdly, how exactly does he envisage that "the new brand will enhance our touring offering"? :?

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: CEO's statement

Postby TonyR » 23 Feb 2016, 4:10pm

mjr wrote:Having non-cycling people designing infrastructure at most highway authorities isn't exactly working out better!


Having keen cyclists designing infrastructure isn't exactly a barrel of laughs either. Bedford Turbo Roundabout? Cambridge Radegund roundabout?

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: CEO's statement

Postby TonyR » 23 Feb 2016, 4:14pm

Bicycler wrote:Thirdly, how exactly does he envisage that "the new brand will enhance our touring offering"? :?


How does it detract from it?

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13743
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: CEO's statement

Postby mjr » 23 Feb 2016, 4:28pm

TonyR wrote:
mjr wrote:Having non-cycling people designing infrastructure at most highway authorities isn't exactly working out better!


Having keen cyclists designing infrastructure isn't exactly a barrel of laughs either. Bedford Turbo Roundabout? Cambridge Radegund roundabout?

I'd agree that it's necessary but not sufficient, as demonstrated by those two dual network examples designed by (AIUI) vehicular cyclists, but I'm sure you know much worse crimes against cycling designed by non-cyclists, as I do.

TonyR wrote:
Bicycler wrote:Thirdly, how exactly does he envisage that "the new brand will enhance our touring offering"? :?


How does it detract from it?

Dropping "touring" from the headline and getting ride of the touring and technical support officers to fund it? :evil:
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: CEO's statement

Postby Bicycler » 23 Feb 2016, 4:35pm

TonyR wrote:
Bicycler wrote:Thirdly, how exactly does he envisage that "the new brand will enhance our touring offering"? :?


How does it detract from it?

I'm not claiming it does. I'll just be interested to see what is meant by the new brand enhancing it.