Hello all. There have been a few questions and misconceptions in this thread that I'd like to address. We do keep abreast of the forum posts in CTC National Office. The moderators flag up threads of particular interest and many of the CTC staff up and down the country, as avid cycling fans, log on in their own time. As to the survey itself, there are some built in barriers to multiple responses from a simple IP address but it wouldn't take a genius to get around these. The number of respondents for the survey has been very encouraging so a few duplicate entries wouldn't represent a significant bias. So, for those who are determined, it is possible to complete the survey more than once, personally I'd sooner spend my spare time riding my bike. The majority of the comments on the brand review, whether cynical or constructive, have made interesting reading. We've also had a good volume of emails on the subject. We have come across some fresh perspectivees and a few gems of real insight. We've asked the researchers to consider the forum posts and the emails in the review so we will be seen warts and all. I hope that helps and please keep your comments coming; 'The only thing worse than being talked about is...'
My response to any sort of rebranding exercise is a single word - "Consignia".
To elaborate, did *anyone* gain *anything* from the Royal Mail's rebranding disaster, apart from the Royal Mail's competitors and whatever idiotic PR firm suggested it?
Rebranding almost always strikes me as being akin to a company buying a big, shiny new corporate headquarters building. A good way to waste a big chunk of money on what is essentially a vanity project. There are times when it is necessary - indeed vital. But those times are outnumbered by at least a factor of ten by the times when it was a bad move.
Richard D wrote:My response to any sort of rebranding exercise is a single word - "Consignia".
To elaborate, did *anyone* gain *anything* from the Royal Mail's rebranding disaster, apart from the Royal Mail's competitors and whatever idiotic PR firm suggested it?
Rebranding almost always strikes me as being akin to a company buying a big, shiny new corporate headquarters building. A good way to waste a big chunk of money on what is essentially a vanity project. There are times when it is necessary - indeed vital. But those times are outnumbered by at least a factor of ten by the times when it was a bad move.
Richard D: I really disagree with you (in a friendly sort of way of course). Rebranding (or even worse "refreshing the brand") can fail, like any marketing exercise but can also succeed. The real issue is, "Why a rebranding at all?". Maybe the CTC could let us know.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
A re-branding succeeds when it eradicates the connection between the old brand which customers/clients/voters know to be toxic and the new brand, which they will later realise is toxic too.
I dont consider the CTC brand to be toxic...but I often wear a beard and sandals.
horizon wrote: ... The real issue is, "Why a rebranding at all?". Maybe the CTC could let us know.
I rarely do surveys because I tend to get miffed that the questions put words in my mouth and I've not bothered with this one. I only mention that to say that perhaps the line of questions adopted by the survey shows what's happening. Be that as it may, I'm unclear whether the CTC is just looking for another, more trendy name / image, or whether it's looking for a substantially different market. David Dowling / CTC Support refers to clearing up misconceptions but the only one he does address is that of multiple completions by individuals.
I started to write a long post the other night then gave up through lack of time and, I have to say, patience. I would have said that the "brand refresh" (let's use the new way) is simply the tip of an iceberg of quite deep organisational change, albeit very symbolic. Whether the CTC itself is consciously aware as to how deep, I don't know. Most voluntary organisations are now sinking or swimming in this tide of cultural change: basically you no longer need deeply felt aims or values (however badly managed). You need instead to achieve - to win, to reach targets, to be rewarded. It doesn't matter for what as long as it has a veneer of credibility, reasonably conforms to current values and is quantifiable. Thereafter follows the funding, the higher salaries and the rewards of competition: the fit win. This cultural change allows for the privatisation of the voluntary sector. Look out for lots of marketing, smiling models, anodyne aims. But don't look too hard for controversial ideas or political change as they won't be there. The women's cycling team is a perfect start.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
At this stage, CTC is really conducting a brand review. That is, we are taking a critical look at the logo, strapline, corporate colours, etc. to judge if they represent CTC the way we'd like. This is the reason we have been asking members to fill in the questionnaire and we’ll be asking other groups how they see us too. It is this research that will tell us if a change is style would be beneficial. We won’t make changes lightly. The reasons that the review seemed necessary are discussed in this thread and ‘It’s all in the name – Cyclists’ TOURING club’. To answer Thirdcrank’s queries, of course we hope our existing members will stick with us and, like any other membership organisation, we’d like to acquire new members too. We’ve had an impressive increase in Student and Family Memberships recently. We want CTC to appeal to a broad base of cyclists but I doubt that anything too trendy would sit well on our fine old organisation.
CTC Support wrote:That is, we are taking a critical look at the logo, strapline, corporate colours, etc. to judge if they represent CTC the way we'd like.
A critical look is the critical bit. There is no point worrying about the first part of this sentence unless we are sure know what type of organisation we are. I've been a member since 2004 and I am now less clear on what CTC is and how it fits with British Cycling, Sustrans et al. than I was when I joined.
I think the CTC would be better rebranding itself as the Retro Tourists Club. I recon if it did this, it could gain many thousands of new members, all keen to bring out their prized retro bikes and retro clothing. Just look at all the successful marketing by Pashley, Brooks, Condor etc... Retro is far more interesting and attractive a proposition. CTC needs to embrace its past.
^^^ I suspect that was written in half-jest, but you have a point.
For that reason I wouldn't be surprised if the CTC went fully back to the winged wheel. But it'll depend on the design team, as nowadays it seems to be a coin-toss as to whether something goes retro or ultra-modern with Helvetica Neue and hero banners on websites.
Most car firms such as Fiat and Ford ditched their sixties modern logo in favour of their traditional one.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
Hello I would like Cyclists Touring Club to return and dicth CTC. I would like the winged wheel. I would like no nonsense non bigots in local units and less cliques! Other than that I love being a member for the Insurance (worth actually very little indeed). John
The majority of the comments on the brand review, whether cynical or constructive, have made interesting reading. We've also had a good volume of emails on the subject. We have come across some fresh perspectivees and a few gems of real insight. We've asked the researchers to consider the forum posts and the emails in the review so we will be seen warts and all. I hope that helps and please keep your comments coming; 'The only thing worse than being talked about is...' 
