Cycling UK Forum

Velocio wrote:

ukdodger wrote:'CUK'. I wonder if they considered that abreviation.

...see the thread: Don't mention the CUK

It does rather lend itself to 'bleep' the CUK.

It's causing me real issues.....being an idle git at heart I am finding it really difficult to type the whole thing* out in my correspondence with National Office. So far no one has complained.

*yes, I know it's only an extra "ycling" but I'm (sort of) of the MTV Generation.....Give Me Convenience Or Give Me Death

Bmblbzzz wrote:Dragging back on topic: In the end I feel or at least hope that the charitised CUK might be able to act upon government to bring about some sort of change which wouldn't have been possible by a club. Not sure I like the process but... we'll see.

But....if they are receiving government monies can they shout loudly?

CTC has been campaigning as a Charity (CTC Charitable Trust) since 2004. The Trust was merged into the Club after the 2012 Charity Conversion.

Do not get the op. Any democratic organisation should embrace pro and con. It just happens that more negatives are being sent and that just shows how uncertain quite a few people feel. To ask for positive comments only is at best naive.
It is so easy to ignore the core function, travelling on a bike, and be taken over by politically motivated people and my worry is that this is what is happening. I just want to ride my bike and chat with likeminded people.
Getting back to basics in the morning with a long ride in the Surrey lanes.

gaz wrote:CTC has been campaigning as a Charity (CTC Charitable Trust) since 2004. The Trust was merged into the Club after the 2012 Charity Conversion.

Quite. A lot of the opinions voiced on this topic relate to wider issues rather than the specific brand change. Primarily:
1. "I don't like the rebrand because I don't want my club to be a charity" - the brand change doesn't alter the charitable status of the club in any way.
2 "The rebrand is necessary because the word 'touring' doesn't accurately describe what the charity does" - The rebrand doesn't remove the word 'touring' which hasn't been part of the brand name for many years. The brand name was "CTC - The National Cycling Charity" and is now "Cycling UK". The rebrand doesn't change the official name of the club, which remains the Cyclists' Touring Club.

Bicycler wrote:

gaz wrote:CTC has been campaigning as a Charity (CTC Charitable Trust) since 2004. The Trust was merged into the Club after the 2012 Charity Conversion.

Quite. A lot of the opinions voiced on this topic relate to wider issues rather than the specific brand change. Primarily:
1. "I don't like the rebrand because I don't want my club to be a charity" - the brand change doesn't alter the charitable status of the club in any way.
2 "The rebrand is necessary because the word 'touring' doesn't accurately describe what the charity does" - The rebrand doesn't remove the word 'touring' which hasn't been part of the brand name for many years. The brand name was "CTC - The National Cycling Charity" and is now "Cycling UK". The rebrand doesn't change the official name of the club, which remains the Cyclists' Touring Club.

...one positive note about the new name ...is the removal of our Club being a 'Cycling Charity' ...next time they are considering a rebrand ...which will probably be soon ...they could consider "Cycle Touring GB" ...unless of course ...'CTGB' means something rude...!!

I have thought the re brand needed to happen for a few years, we have become the retired cycling society. It seems containing many vocal members resistant to change.
We realy need to change just stand still, let alone keep up with other cycling organisations.
I will be more than happy renewing my membership, and will continue to tour and lead tours over the coming years.

BrianFox wrote:
The CTC, like it or not, has an image of consisting of curmudgeonly bearded men in sandals (readers of this thread might find that stereotype reinforced...).

Hi brian,

While this might be true in cycling circles, for the uninitiated you have the choice between joining a racey group, a mtb group or the ctc. I have never toured or audax end in my life, but when I moved to the UK and looked for a group to join I looked for the group riding 32mm rubber with mudguards and steel frames. Most of the members I know are either established tourists or commuter cyclists, and the latter would rather join the ctc than bc because they are not racers.

I think the winged wheel and the heritage of the ctc is more likely to attract people than the new logo and rename. (Heck, even the board functionality is worse th an the ctc board).

bikercolin wrote:I have thought the re brand needed to happen for a few years, we have become the retired cycling society.

Nothing to do with branding, that. It's because many CTC groups ride when most working people work. Even if it's only some rides, would you want to join the most expensive grouping (CTC £40+local, BC £27?+local, CN only local fees) and then feel you're only getting half or a third of the opportunities?

I have been a member off and on since the mid 80's and have worked in the public sector with local and national government departments.
I have a life long interest in cycling history and on a personal level was disappointed to see the rebrand. But on balance I can see that change was necessary. In the past I have come across the CTC in consultation processes and to be honest it was embarrassing, no professional presence whatsoever and several missed opportunities to influence transport policy. The organisation would have been lost in the wilderness if it didn't change.

I do think its strength lies in it members and its heritage. The powers that be cant please all and with hindsight this mess could have been handled much better. I think the new name is lame and will be lost amongst the other pressure groups that exist, it doesn't suggest that it is a club for ALL cyclists, it could even be a cycling product retailer!. The winged wheel should have been evolved into a modern icon with an added a strap line of something like 'working for cyclists since 1878'. When did an organisation with an iconic brand identity (Coke, Virgin, Ford, Apple, Brookes) completely rebrand without acknowledging its historical underpinnings, its commercial madness. It will be too costly to rebrand again but on the basis that change was essential I do think some recognition of the clubs heritage needs to be added to the brand identity, not a page of history on the web site and a few comments by the CEO to rebut the criticism flying in his direction. This would go someway to make the club inclusive to all members.

The danger is the club fragments and starts on the road to a slow death to be absorbed by another cycling organisation.

Caulkheader wrote:I have been a member off and on since the mid 80's and have worked in the public sector with local and national government departments.
I have a life long interest in cycling history and on a personal level was disappointed to see the rebrand. But on balance I can see that change was necessary. In the past I have come across the CTC in consultation processes and to be honest it was embarrassing, no professional presence whatsoever and several missed opportunities to influence transport policy. The organisation would have been lost in the wilderness if it didn't change.

That isn't really a branding issue though is it? The same policies prevail. The same people will be engaging in the same consultation processes, in all likelihood missing the same opportunities. You seem to support every aspect of the rebranding except the rebranding! Yet, the rebranding is all there is. Quite a lot of the positive comments we've heard about the rebrand haven't been directly about the rebrand, but the need for some aspects of the CTC to change. There has been a lot of "I support change; the rebrand is change, therefore I support the rebrand."

I think the need for a more effective CTC/CUK is fairly universally agreed upon but, for the reasons you gave, I just don't think the rebranding was a step in the right direction, nor is there any reason to see it as an indication of worthwhile changes to come.

Hi Bicycler -

I agree, there are are two aspects - rebranding and a change in the direction of the club.

I don't like the new 'brand' for the reasons I have given. I would have been happy if we had remained the CTC but to change back now - is that really going to happen and what would the cost be?

Change in the policy and direction of the club, I can only go by what I have read and there are plans - it won't happen over night and time will tell.

Why can't they have two names:

Cycling-UK or similar for campaigning

and CTC/Cyclists Touring Club for Touring etc ...

But… its no longer a club, its a charity working for everyone, not specifically for members. You are no longer members, you are supporters funding a charity thats mission is to get more people cycling and bashing its head on a brick wall as far as cycling infrastructure improvement is concerned - there is no money.The Council have signalled that touring is an insignificant aspect of cycling so the CTC name has been dumped . Their current preoccupation is to get the last few years VAT back so they can fund salary packages for their new paid executives whose task is to get more money for cycle campaigning.

Al