Philip Benstead wrote:RE-BRANDING – THE POLL OF THE ENTIRE CLUB (AGREED WORDING)
Some think “Cyclists’ Touring Club” is unappealing or non-descript. To rectify this, it was re-branded as “Cycling UK”. This brand has been criticised by many http://www.underconsideration.com/brand ... ing_uk.php In addition the acronym (‘CUK’) has disagreeable connotations and the word champion suggest competitiveness.
In my view, the consultation with the membership and implementation were dubious, with the use of survey methods lacking in intellectual rigour. I believe that with the Council required by the Chair to maintain commercial confidentiality the membership were kept in the dark.
Over time, we have adjusted our name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_UK but since 1883, it has become established in the corridors of power and the media.
We learnt at the AGM that the CEO welcomes use of the word “CLUB” and that he wishes to promote and develop the use of the “WINGED WHEEL” this seems inopportune to discard the related name. What counts is “What does CTC do for CYCLING and those who enjoy it” and to broadcast as widely as possible.
How to make “Cyclists’ Touring Club” relevant, we need to embrace the full name and incorporate a strapline that shouts out to all.
“Cyclists’ Touring Club” - The “Voice” of Cycling.
The other side will know the content of this and they will be only permitted max of 200 words.
I would say not strong and not convincing. Nowhere do you say e.g. "You should vote against this name change because ...".
I'd be writing more along the lines of:
"You should vote against this rebranding because
1. Discarding the long established reputation of the CTC will hinder what the organisation can achieve
2. The name is weak and easily confused with other different organisations
3. The obvious abbreviation has unpleasant uses and meanings.
4. The consultation was lacking and members were kept in the dark for no good reason
5. At a critical time for cycle campaigning the organisation should be focusing on campaigning not wasting limited finance and resource on PR and marketing
(Not counted the words nor checked all reasons - and example rather than a proposal).
I think it an easier style to read and less of a "discussion" on the matter. Clear "vote against" and then brief and easily understood reasons.