Name Change

[Sweep]

Nice posts in particular hujev and brucey.

I agree that the logo is micturate poor in the extreme. Would be interested to know how much it cost - looks to me like something a 14 year old would have produced on a desktop publishing package circa 1987.

I used to be a ctc member, let it lapse when i returned to london and joined lcc. Was thinking of rejoining but rather unlikely now.

[Mick F]

I know it's been said before on here, but British Cycling has the better name, and Cycling UK is a poor (sort of) copy.

If you knew nothing about cycling organisations, you could use British Cycling and Cycling UK in the same sentence and you wouldn't even notice. I reckon that the man in the street would think they were the same thing.

When it comes down to it, what's the difference between their names?

[Brucey]

some info on other rebranding exercises (that missed the mark by miles) here

http://www.canny-creative.com/2013/10/10-rebranding-failures-how-much-they-cost/

what the above article misses is that, actually, BP had already been rebranded before that. The font used in the logo had been changed from its previous incarnation. I think (from memory) the slope of the font and the serifs were tweaked. The agency that did it got a mighty fee and (because all the signs on all the BP petrol stations everywhere had to be changed, as well as all the stationary, etc) the hardware cost ran into tens of millions too. Most people didn't even notice.

This kind of thing goes in fashion waves; 'Consignia' was chosen at the same time as it seemed perfectly reasonable (to the people that spend their lives inspecting their navels, er, I mean 'thinking creatively' about this kind of thing... ) to call a railway operator 'Arriva' and so forth. Doubtless if the Royal Mail were rebranded today they might end up with an equally rubbish result as the CTC has; like

we are
posting
UK

or something...

Need I say more?

If you think how rubbish it looks now, how bad is it going to look in a few year's time? If I were cynical I'd suggest that all swaying with the breeze in this way does is to ensure yet further work for the people that do this sort of thing.

cheers

[ambodach]

At least British Cycling could withstand the effect of any political changes in the make up of these islands. I could remain a member legitimately of British Cycling even when Scotland splits off. Cycling UK would immediately be irrelevant and would then need to have another expensive rebrand.
As an earlier post said this is simply corporate wildly waving and serves no useful purpose.

[Psamathe]

...
As an earlier post said this is simply corporate wildly waving and serves no useful purpose.

It keeps highly paid people in work having plenty of meetings to go to, reports to read, reports to write. No doubt National Office are having more meetings all patting each other on the back "that all went well" and congratulating each other.

Ian

[ANTONISH]

Way back I was in NCU then illicitly the League (extra racing opportunity ) - then BCF.
I had a long break from cycling and joined CTC in the nineties. I was quite impressed with it at the time - I thought the magazine was very good with informative technical articles.
I can only say that the CTC regression to Cycling UK has been a long downhill slope.
I'm now a member (or should that be a subscriber) only for the insurance.
My club is affiliated to British Cycling and I think that is where I'm heading before my next CUK renewal.

[geocycle]

I know it's been said before on here, but British Cycling has the better name, and Cycling UK is a poor (sort of) copy.

If you knew nothing about cycling organisations, you could use British Cycling and Cycling UK in the same sentence and you wouldn't even notice. I reckon that the man in the street would think they were the same thing.

When it comes down to it, what's the difference between their names?

What's the difference between British Cycling and Cycling UK? Northern Ireland if we are talking geographically perhaps? But even that is open to political debate!

[pedalsheep]

Presumably this whole hideous business was paid for by our subscriptions. Surely we are entitled to know just how much it cost.

[Bicycler]

What's the difference between British Cycling and Cycling UK? Northern Ireland if we are talking geographically perhaps? But even that is open to political debate!

Not even the most flag waving unionist would argue that Northern Ireland is geographically part of Great Britain. The term British Isles is a bit more controversial because it includes the whole of the island of Ireland. As for British Cycling, it (nowadays) refers to the geographical area, not the political one. It doesn't represent Northern Ireland (though admittedly it does include the Isle of Man).

I think the point here is that Scotland will remain a geographical part of Great Britain, regardless of whether it remains in the UK.

[iandriver]

I know it's been said before on here, but British Cycling has the better name

I can't remember when the British Cycling Federation etc. merged with the other branches of cycling to form British Cycling, but there was a very large change in a lot of the sports governing bodies names in the leadup to London 2012. They all became British InsertSportHere as part of a standardised identity exercise.
I still have an Amatur Rowing Association race licence somewhere, it became British Rowing sometime around 2008 or 9 or so. British Swimming logos are all over the local pool.

No one seemed to mind the name change and the sports had a huge heritage in their own right.

[mjr]

At least British Cycling could withstand the effect of any political changes in the make up of these islands. I could remain a member legitimately of British Cycling even when Scotland splits off. Cycling UK would immediately be irrelevant and would then need to have another expensive rebrand.
As an earlier post said this is simply corporate wildly waving and serves no useful purpose.

Scottish Cycling is already a semi-detached similar brand within British Cycling. They're clearly hedging against independence.

Meanwhile, http://www.ctcscotland.org.uk/ appears to have gone dark. I don't know if that's related to the rebranding or what.

[AlanW]

Just to echo what has already been said, but what a shame that the brand CTC has gone after so many years. I have been a member for more years than I care to recall, but its doubtful if I will renew my membership next year.

[gaz]

Meanwhile, http://www.ctcscotland.org.uk/ appears to have gone dark. I don't know if that's related to the rebranding or what.

Nothing to do with the rebrand. From the Wayback machine the plug was pulled somewhere between August 2013 when the site was still live and March 2014 when it was re-directing to the main ctc website.

[Paulatic]

At least British Cycling could withstand the effect of any political changes in the make up of these islands. I could remain a member legitimately of British Cycling even when Scotland splits off. Cycling UK would immediately be irrelevant and would then need to have another expensive rebrand.
As an earlier post said this is simply corporate wildly waving and serves no useful purpose.

Scottish Cycling is already a semi-detached similar brand within British Cycling. They're clearly hedging against independence.

Meanwhile, http://www.ctcscotland.org.uk/ appears to have gone dark. I don't know if that's related to the rebranding or what.

I have a feeling weareCycling will be weaker in Scotland than what they already are.
My old DA has been dying since the day we stopped being an affiliated club in 2003. I could see this mess coming and if I'd been able to attend last years AGM I wanted to discuss returning back to being affiliated. We've tried locally to introduce people to the "gift" of cycling in many ways. Back in the old days many of them paid their £6 to join us. Since being a DA very few people have felt it worthwhile to cough up the CTC fee. Those who did maybe did it for an odd year but couldn't see the value of it.
I doubt the heed yins down sarth ever thought about the possibility of Scotland leaving the UK. You can tell, by that dead link, just how important Scotland is to them. They've got their T Shirts and freebies and their enthusiasm is maybe beginning to flag.

EDIT: posted before seeing Gaz explanation of the dead link

[Paulatic]

I love Gaz's dexterity with that Wayback Machine [emoji4]
Looks like Scotland isn't playing game.