Name Change

[mattsccm]

It couldn't be The National Cycling whatever as it isn't. That's BC. A best CUK is a national cycling whatever. And nowadays its really a national campaigning whatever at best.

[keyboardmonkey]

If - as it seems - Cycling UK - lets forget the stupid "we are" bit for the time being - is a "wholly owned subsidiary" of the CTC then why cant the CTC remain as the umbrella organisation rather than the other way round? Then we could have Cycling uk - the campaigning arm of the CTC or Cycling UK the training arm of the CTC.
That way the tourists keep their cherished identity and the campaigners have the identity they feel they need to make an impact at a national level. The CTC has always been a campaigning organisation - lets not forget that but it mustn't be at the expense of its original identity.

I had just been about to purchase a CTC jersey for a trip to Holland, (but they seem to have disappeared) - would I want to wear one with "we are cycling uk" emblazoned on it NO! That logo is just embarrassing.

+1

[ambodach]

Well said steady eddie.

[Whimwham7]

If - as it seems - Cycling UK - lets forget the stupid "we are" bit for the time being - is a "wholly owned subsidiary" of the CTC then why cant the CTC remain as the umbrella organisation rather than the other way round? Then we could have Cycling uk - the campaigning arm of the CTC or Cycling UK the training arm of the CTC.
That way the tourists keep their cherished identity and the campaigners have the identity they feel they need to make an impact at a national level. The CTC has always been a campaigning organisation - lets not forget that but it mustn't be at the expense of its original identity.

Another radically sensible suggestion.

In the vain hope that members of Council, CEO, or anyone at CTC Towers in Guildford actually READS these posts. may I humbly request that this idea be taken on board as a POSITIVE WAY FORWARD out of the mess that Council has unnecessarily created.

CTC is the organisation - Cycling UK is (or should be) part of that.

W

[Mick F]

+1

[Bicycler]

You're going to have to forgive me but aren't you all arguing for what has actually happened? The umbrella organisation remains the Cyclists' Touring Club. (We Are) Cycling UK has been adopted as a trading name, ostensibly to aid the club's campaigning efforts. Member Groups may choose to use the CUK, CTC or Cyclists' Touring Club names as they see fit. Those who wish to use the winged wheel may do so. Indeed CUK use it on their own website. The club's touring packages are still called CTC Cycling Holidays.

[steady eddy]

No I don't think I am - look at the address at the foot of the opening page of the current issue of Cycle - If Cycling UK was subservient - a subsidiary of - or what ever you want to call it then there would have been no need to change the address, the website, the heading to this forum, the front page of cycle etc etc. The headline brand is now undoubtedly Cycling UK and CTC has been relegated to the brand which runs the holidays not withstanding that it presently remains the name of the charity.

I have had a lot of experience over the years of public consultation in government and I understand the need for other people to understand in their minds who it is they are consulting with or hearing back from with a response, so I "get" that part of the argument but I don't understand why this can't be done under the umbrella of the CTC. Perhaps we should just have been better at explaining all the things that the CTC did, to stop people thinking that it is just "old blokes on bikes".

[Bicycler]

Okay, I thought you were asking why the CTC name couldn't be kept for the benefit of tourists alongside the new brand. In fairness I think they have allowed member groups the freedom to do just that within the rebranding. It seems that I misunderstood, and what you were actually asking is why the CTC had to change its brand instead of just rebranding the campaigning side of the club as Cycling UK.

The answer is that since 2012 the charitable aspect is no longer a mere sideline, a distinct subsidiary; it is now the raison d'être of the organisation. The vast majority of the club's activities must be towards its charitable objectives. So its charitable campaigning identity is, by definition, its primary identity, even where it is not its sole identity.

FWIW, I agree with you that we might have been better off keeping everything under the CTC brand and trying to raise awareness of all that it does.

[Psamathe]

...The answer is that since 2012 the charitable aspect is no longer a mere sideline, a distinct subsidiary; it is now the raison d'être of the organisation. It should run through most of the organisation. The vast majority of the club's activities must be towards its charitable objectives. So its charitable campaigning identity is, by definition, its primary identity, even where it is not its sole identity.

That seems to ignore the MGs and all the rides, etc. they organise, member talks, etc. I can't see why the "largest" aspect of the operation cannot still be operated under a main organisation. i.e. CTC umbrella organisation with subsidiaries or "trading names" operating below/within it. And under such an organisation there will always be a largest component and smaller components - which really does not matter.

We used to have parent company with subsidiaries and some of those subsidiaries operated under their own names and also had trading names and there were larger and smaller "components". The size of any aspect is not important but rather the sector and work it undertakes. In our case we had (amongst others) "trade sales" and "end-user" sales and within "end-user sales" we had a "trading as" operating to handle retail. Retail was small but keeping it logically isolated from other end-user sales avoided a lot of confusion from customers and massively simplified the operation.

So I can see no reason why the umbrella could not have CUK (though with a better name/logo/branding) operating as the campaigning side and CTC operating as the member services side (MGs, touring, etc.). In practice both Umbrella and member services might be called CTC but they need not be the same operation. Staff, office space, resources etc. could all be shared either on a pre-allocated basis or on an "as needed" basis. And in practice nobody would be dealing directly with the umbrella organisation. Which is the sort of thing raised in another thread and gets round loads of the problems the rebranding has created. Pity the organisers don't seem to have the ability to have spotted this.

Ian

[gaz]

You're going to have to forgive me but aren't you all arguing for what has actually happened? The umbrella organisation remains the Cyclists' Touring Club. (We Are) Cycling UK has been adopted as a trading name, ostensibly to aid the club's campaigning efforts. Member Groups may choose to use the CUK, CTC or Cyclists' Touring Club names as they see fit. Those who wish to use the winged wheel may do so. Indeed CUK use it on their own website. The club's touring packages are still called CTC Cycling Holidays.

+1, almost. I'll come back to the almost later.

Cycling UK is a trading name. Everything it does is still technically provided by Cyclists' Touring Club Ltd, just as it was before.

Which brings us to the almost. IMO it's the technically that matters to many of those who are unhappy with the rebrand (being unhappy with the rebrand process is another matter). When the trading name was CTC, everything it did was obviously provided by Cyclists' Touring Club Ltd.

Many of those who are unhappy with the rebrand are arguing that technically is not good enough.

CTC Cycling Holidays is a trading name, the part of CTC that provides tour packages. The tour packages are actually provided by CTC Cycling Holidays & Tours Ltd*, and most definitely not by Cyclists' Touring Club Limited.

* A wholly owned subsidary of Cyclists' Touring Club Ltd since 2000. CTC Council appoints the directors of CTC Cycling Holidays & Tours Ltd. The directors will decide if any change of trading name is required (I have no reason to believe that they will), there are no members to consult.

[gaz]

That seems to ignore the MGs and all the rides, etc. they organise, member talks, etc. I can't see why the "largest" aspect of the operation cannot still be operated under a main organisation. i.e. CTC umbrella organisation with subsidiaries or "trading names" operating below/within it. And under such an organisation there will always be a largest component and smaller components - which really does not matter.
...

The MGs are run through subsidiary companies, since 1973 IIRC.

Whilst there is strong encouragement for MGs to adopt Cycling UK they have been offered the flexibility of choosing to stick with CTC for their "trading names" if they so wish.

[Bicycler]

Thanks for all that gaz. I was aware of the different companies but didn't really consider it important to the point I was making. I fully understand (and agree with) the reasons why many are unhappy about the loss of the CTC brand as the main trading name for the organisation. My point in that post was that I don't really buy into this idea of tourists within the club losing the right to use the CTC name. CUK seem quite happy for member groups and other touring activities to keep the CTC brand (albeit preferably acknowledging the connection with Cycling UK).

Ian, I'm not so sure it is all that easy to separate the different sides of the organisation. When a member group decides to do introductory beginner rides are they offering a member service or getting people cycling in accordance with the charity's aims? Do members rebrand themselves from CTC to CUK if they are asked to participate in a community initiative. For people like Si with fingers in many pies it might create a bit of an identity crisis More worryingly it might confuse people within the local communities, thinking the brands to be two different organisations.

[gaz]

...
So I can see no reason why the umbrella could not have CUK (though with a better name/logo/branding) operating as the campaigning side and CTC operating as the member services side (MGs, touring, etc.). In practice both Umbrella and member services might be called CTC but they need not be the same operation. Staff, office space, resources etc. could all be shared either on a pre-allocated basis or on an "as needed" basis. And in practice nobody would be dealing directly with the umbrella organisation. Which is the sort of thing raised in another thread and gets round loads of the problems the rebranding has created. Pity the organisers don't seem to have the ability to have spotted this.

In an earlier post on another thread you suggested that MGs would be disadvantaged by not associating themselves with Cycling UK because they would miss out on the publicity surrounding the launch of the new brand. You are now suggesting a dual brand organisation can be every bit as succesful as a single brand.

IMO that amounts to an argument of damned that you did and damned if you hadn't.

[Psamathe]

...
So I can see no reason why the umbrella could not have CUK (though with a better name/logo/branding) operating as the campaigning side and CTC operating as the member services side (MGs, touring, etc.). In practice both Umbrella and member services might be called CTC but they need not be the same operation. Staff, office space, resources etc. could all be shared either on a pre-allocated basis or on an "as needed" basis. And in practice nobody would be dealing directly with the umbrella organisation. Which is the sort of thing raised in another thread and gets round loads of the problems the rebranding has created. Pity the organisers don't seem to have the ability to have spotted this.

In an earlier post on another thread you suggested that MGs would be disadvantaged by not associating themselves with Cycling UK because they would miss out on the publicity surrounding the launch of the new brand. You are now suggesting a dual brand organisation can be every bit as succesful as a single brand.

IMO that amounts to an argument of damned that you did and damned if you hadn't.

Under the structure the organisers have used MGs would be disadvantaged by not adopting CUK branding. But operated as a "member services" it could be organised in such a way as to not disadvantage them (or very minimally).

For example, if CUK have a national campaign to get people cycling and they propose "Contact your local CUK group" - MGs who have stuck to CTC branding would not benefit. However same campaign phrased as "You can get help starting cycling from your local CTC group" and they would not be disadvantaged. They could do the "contact your local CUK group or your local CTC group (same organisation) but it would complicate things and dilute the message - do members of the public seek out a CUK group or a CTC group ?

I'd suspect a fair amount of CUK's campaigning will not involve MGs (e.g. Road Justice, Boxed bikes crossing through tunnel, PCC elections, others can probably come up with more/better examples). There will always be areas of minor confusion, though this would be minimised by having a the different aspects under different structures (divisions, "trading as", etc.).

But one major benefit to having campaigning and "member services" under different divisions is it does not micturate of a lot of the members (the people who are paying for it all and paying for other work done by the organisation). When PT says how the change to CUK will "enhance their touring offering" it sounds like empty words as (from what I've seen) there is no explanation or justification as to how it will enhance their turing offering. Add in how they got rid of J and many are naturally sceptical so are very ready to disbelieve empty words.

In my example (company one) in the end-user sales side we had cases where the same customer would deal with both the end-user company and the retail trading as company. In fact the retail trading as company on occasions would take the business and introduce the customer to the end-user company for other business more related to that operation - and all without confusion (they provided the same product range though with different services).

Ian

[gaz]

...
For example, if CUK have a national campaign to get people cycling and they propose "Contact your local CUK group" - MGs who have stuck to CTC branding would not benefit. However same campaign phrased as "You can get help starting cycling from your local CTC group" and they would not be disadvantaged. They could do the "contact your local CUK group or your local CTC group (same organisation) but it would complicate things and dilute the message - do members of the public seek out a CUK group or a CTC group ?
...

For a national campaign all Cycling UK have to do is exactly the same as they did as CTC: "Go to our website for details of local cycling groups". The website has a prominent "Go Cycling" dropdown on the main page that promotes both MGs and AGs, exactly as it did when the website was CTC branded.

The CTC brand was promoting cycling. It was successfully promoting cycling through groups that shared its brand name (MGs) and groups that use a large range of different brands (AGs).

The Cycling UK brand will promote cycling. It will succesfully promote cycling through groups that share its brand name (MGs), groups that use the CTC brand (MGs) and groups that use other brands (AGs).