Vorpal wrote:BC do a good job marketing themselves. Cycling UK don't. IMO, it's fairly simple.
What do you base that on? BC primarily market themselves with a sporting image and that's what's in fashion, so it's hardly surprising they have a greater appeal. Would you suggest Cycling UK do the same?
No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that they market themselves for what they want to be known for (campaigning? an organisaiton of everyday cyclists?).
mattheus wrote:The BC sporting marketing department is basically paid for by SKY. I believe their annual budget is around £30 million.
Tough to compete with that!
Yeah, It is tough to compete with. But I'm not suggesting that Cycling UK need a £30 million marketing budget. But, they can also seek sponsorship and corporate donations.
What I'm suggesting is merely that they do more to develop their image, and support local groups in doing so.
They do a little better now than they did 10 or 15 years ago, but not yet enough. At least now, if you google 'cycling' and the name of a town or area, you will get some hits that are Cycling UK or affiliated local groups. It used to get mostly BC affiliated and independent clubs.
On the other hand, most non-cyclists have never heard of Cycling UK.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom