I have a story for you.

[Philip Benstead]

I have a story for you.
I went to buy a pair of shoes at Cotswold Outdoor London – Piccadilly.
I was served by a male who looked a bit like a young version of Maurice Gibb [https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/707 ... urice-gibb]

(https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A ... mjgAzXOEz8) of the Bee Gees.


He was around 25 to 30 years of age.


In addition, to working in the shop he also works in a sports outdoor centre.


I told him I was a CTC member because the shop gave a CTC discount, but I added that you might know it as Cycling UK.

He replies he knew about the name change but thought the new name was awful, it meant nothing.


IMHO He was the sort of person we need in the CTC young and outdoors type.


IMHO We fell into the trap of thinking we know what young people think.

[jgurney]

IMHO We fell into the trap of thinking we know what young people think.

I suggest it is a case of a problem which has affected several organisations, and where I cannot see any good solution: the issue of whether to change with the times to hopefully appeal to a wider public when that may alienate current and potential supporters who like the older version. It can indeed get particularly fraught when provision for or by young people is involved.

I think YHA had worse issues to CTC/CUK over this. In the case of YHA, whether to seek more 'customers' or to remain firmly for 'members', with all that both concepts implied, whether to move upmarket, how to deal with motorists and whether to make a stand to defend the ability of under-16's to travel independently, arose.

The organisation where I saw this most closely was in the Woodcraft Folk in the mid to late 1980's, when it found itself embroiled in a series of internal conflicts. A key one was over the national leadership wanting to make the organisation more, as they might put it, 'relevant and inclusive to modern young people' and running into conflicts with many young adult (16-25) members who liked it the way it was.

Both were right in their different ways: the WF had increasingly diverged from mainstream youth culture and many 15, 18 or 20 year olds looking in from the outside probably did find it unappealing. However the 15, 18 or 20 year olds already inside who had been there since they were 6 or so did indeed like what they had, and were worried that changes would bring alignment with a mainstream which they found unappealing.

[mattheus]

I told him I was a CTC member because the shop gave a CTC discount, but I added that you might know it as Cycling UK.

He replies he knew about the name change but thought the new name was awful, it meant nothing.

IMHO He was the sort of person we need in the CTC young and outdoors type.

IMHO We fell into the trap of thinking we know what young people think.

Perhaps he preferred the old name, but the change made no difference to his engagement with (or opinion of) CTC.

You should be careful about thinking you know what young people think ...

[deeferdonk]

He replies he knew about the name change but thought the new name was awful, it meant nothing.

I think he could have probably hazarded a guess that it was an organisation that had something to do with Cycling within the UK.

[jgurney]

He replies he knew about the name change but thought the new name was awful, it meant nothing.

I think he could have probably hazarded a guess that it was an organisation that had something to do with Cycling within the UK.

Quite - that was all he could do. I personally dislike this trend for changing clear self-explanatory names into ones which leave those not in the know having to make guesses. For example, from two other bodies I am or was a member of:

- 'National Federation of Bus Users' was clearer than 'Bus Users UK'

- 'British Canoe Union' was a lot clearer than 'Paddle UK'. Many people might think the new name is about paddling as in paddling pools, not as in canoes.

Terms like "club", "union" and "federation of ..users" made it clear that these were independent bodies set up by members of the public. Names ending with "UK or "England" give vague hints of official standing, e.g. a foreigner might be forgiven for thinking 'Cycling UK' meant a sub-branch of a government department concerned with roads, dealing with cycling-related issues, or not recognising that it was the name of an organisation, just a reference to the activity.

[deeferdonk]

i think Cycling UK is no more opaque than CTC.

The name CTC first needs you to understand what the acronym stands for, and then understand that the name is inaccurate and the organisation covers more than just cycle touring.

It would have been reasonable for the organisation for the keep the name from a heritage/history point of view, and i am generally not a fan of change for change sake, but Cycling UK seems a good compromise to me if they did feel it needed to be modernised - as British Cycling was already taken!

[mattheus]

This is starting to sound like the moaning about National Trust - they've been attacked for everything they do, upto and including "woke scones" in their cafes.