It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club

[gaz]

I think this goes a long way to underline the point about having people doing the job who know all this stuff from experience otherwise they could quite easily have no idea of what their operating costs really are and how to manage them.

Agreed.

[Psamathe]

We always used to use an employee cost as double their salary (at ALL company levels - people at the top make more/higher expenses claims, need/get more expensive computers, etc.).

Right answer, wrong reason. There are some on costs which are proportional to salary - NI, pension contribution etc. But the rest typically comes not from adding up all the costs for each employee, but from adding up the costs for all employees - rent, rates, heating, IT, etc - and allocating it in proportion to the direct labour costs. Doesn't mean they cost more, its just an artefact of the way the accountants like to account for it.

We always found a massive difference between costs of a low salaried person and a high salaried person (and it was a very significant portion of their salary). I was one of the higher paid in the company (and I did part own the company) and my "costs" were more than my salary (so I was above twice). Same for other senior staff. So in our company higher paid people cost disproportionately more. And it really did come down to hotel bills, flights, travel costs, computers, etc. Not just an accounting practice.

I suspect a lot would depend on how one accounts for "overheads" and the nature of the organisation (and what those people do). From our company perspective the accountants were only there to do the year end accounts (stock take, audit and sign-off on submissions).

Ian

[Velocio]

...this is not good...

http://tinyurl.com/j5zrko4

...why weren't we all consulted...??

Is there another Cycling Touring Club we can join ...that doesn't reflect mountain biking ...cyclocross ...stuntbiking ...and all the other 'inclusive' types of cycling this new outfit ...Cycling UK ...wish to pander to...??

It was bad enough when we had to become a cycling 'charity' instead of a cycling club ...maybe this is the final nail in my membership 'coffin'...!!

Those in power at CTC HQ should be ashamed of themselves

Not happy!!!

You were consulted, extensively. Even the cycling weekly story you link references the most recent consultation. Sorry, but you really can't get uppity about something that's been going on and known about for years. Personally I think the new logo it's a bit crap, a little too like Macmillan, and losing the history is a shame, but really demanding it doesn't "pander" to other lesser cycling styles (as inferred in your post) is silly. Things change over time. Men only clubs have to accept women. White only clubs now accept all humans. The CTC accepts mountain bikes and is inclusive (you say this as if accepting disabled people is a bad thing, I disagree). Get over it.

Honesty ...I was not consulted ...I read CYCLE front to back ...and cannot remember seeing either an article outlining the new changes ...a questionnaire to members asking if they agreed to the new changes ...or any discussion of a new name for our Club. As a disabled cyclist I am offended by your suggestion that I do not accept disabled people. I may be silly ...but cycle touring with others in our Club is my favourite pastime ...and these changes will take quite a time to get over ...if I decide to stay in the Club I enjoy so much.

[millimole]

Out of interest what is the story behind CTC Cycle Racing Limited (mentioned on pages 3/4)?

My hazy recollection is that it was formed at a moment when it looked as though BCF (now British Cycling) might go belly-up. CTC Racing was set up as a fall-back just in case it did, and in order that there would be a body to manage / co-ordinate racing.
I have no idea why it was thought that BCF was in danger, but I seem to recall some long-standing disputes among the factions that came together to form BCF.
(I wonder if BC are thinking of forming 'British Cycling Touring Ltd just in case? )

[TonyR]

I may be silly ...but cycle touring with others in our Club is my favourite pastime ...and these changes will take quite a time to get over ...if I decide to stay in the Club I enjoy so much.

So you are thinking of leaving a club which gives you access to cycling you enjoy so much just because its changing its logo? What do your club mates force you to do? Ride with the logo pinned up in front of you? Be real. The roads will be the same, the rides will be the same, the people you ride with will be the same. There's nothing on the rides that the logo will change. So why on earth would you stop riding with them just because the logos changed

It reminds me of one rebranding I did where someone wrote in to say it was a disgrace The old logo was the only reason they had bought our product and they would now never buy another one. Except we looked up their records and the logo at the time when they made their purchase was something entirely different from the old logo they claimed had been responsible for that purchase decision.

[gaz]

Honesty ...I was not consulted ...I read CYCLE front to back ...and cannot remember seeing either an article outlining the new changes ...a questionnaire to members asking if they agreed to the new changes ...or any discussion of a new name for our Club. ...

This thread was started in response to an online article "Help Shape CTC's future - have your say".

CTC is beginning a consultation process to consider refreshing our brand. This may mean a new way of describing ourselves and our services, a new look and feel, a new way of using our name - or even a new name altogether.

A member survey was linked from the article. It may have been promoted from CycleClips, ClubShorts or other member newsletters around the time but I cannot confirm this.

Edit: Linked from CycleClips 16 August 2013.

That was the start of the consultation.

Cycle December 2013 makes explicit reference to a rebrand and to the fact that Council would be making the final decision.

Feedback on CTC’s future
...
We’ve listened to your views on the Cyclists’ Touring Club’s current trading name (CTC), our logo, and all the other ways we present ourselves. We are now testing a number of options for our name and logo (including the current ones) with groups of current and potential members. Our elected Councillors will review all that we’ve learned and decide how we’ll present ourselves in the future. ...

Council published in Cycle that it intended to make any change of name without a referendum of every single member. Anyone who was not happy with that decision has had over two years to raise the matter with Council or even at an AGM.

Since then there have been consultant led "focus groups", "questionnaires" and other such exercises to gain feedback on a number of possible brands. Members and non-members have been involved. The job adverts for the CEO and the Communications Manager both referred to the rebrand. Council minutes have documented some of the steps taken and their outcomes.

Yet members are still shocked and surprised that a rebrand is now taking place.

[Steady rider]

With regarding to the new brand name, I gather about 2000 were asked for some opinion, there are about 70,000 members, so one in 35 was asked for an opinion is this about right? about 3% of membership.

Were the 2000 given a breakdown of the potential effects, pros and cons? Were they asked if the CTC should be dropped from the main brand name? Were they given options with CTC as part of new brand name?

Why did not Cycle discuss all of the above in detail during the last 12 months and ask for views?

Why was the name change not put to the AGM for endorsement?

[TonyR]

Yet members are still shocked and surprised that a rebrand is now taking place.

Most shocking of all is that a Councillor who was on Council throughout the whole exercise is now leading action to try to overturn all those decisions he was party to in Council at enormous cost to the organisation.

[gaz]

Why was the name change not put to the AGM for endorsement?

Because the Memorandum of Association (agreed by the members) gives Council the power to make a change of trading name. Over two years ago Council said that it intended to exercise those powers and in the intervening period the membership haven't said "hang on a minute ... ".

[TonyR]

Why did not Cycle discuss all of the above in detail during the last 12 months and ask for views?

Usually because, as the pollster will tell you, asking people to volunteer to give their views leads to a massive selection bias. The only way to get a representative view of the members is to use random sampling, not self elected sampling.

[honesty]

..Is there another Cycling Touring Club we can join ...that doesn't reflect mountain biking ...cyclocross ...stuntbiking ...and all the other 'inclusive' types of cycling this new outfit ...Cycling UK ...wish to pander to...??

As a disabled cyclist I am offended by your suggestion that I do not accept disabled people.

Well, since inclusive cycling is specifically used in CTC parlance to indicate disabled cyclists, for example http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewforum.php?f=52 how is saying you want a club that doesn't pander to inclusive cyclists mesh with your acceptance of such?

[Bicycler]

Yet members are still shocked and surprised that a rebrand is now taking place.

Whilst you are quite right to say that it has hardly been a secret, I think that it is equally fair to say that it hasn't featured prominently in communication with members. I liked your earlier Vogon planning application comparison. An organisation knows full well that many members won't read its website or magazine cover to cover and your average Joe definitely won't attempt to string together snippets of information in several disparate documents to understand what's going on. I can certainly understand why some may not have been aware of the change of name. Some of those who were aware of the trading name change might have thought that it was just like the last few, trivial changes with maybe a change of tagline. Instead we have got a complete change. A major change of name which seems out of proportion with the low key nature of the announcements about a name change being considered.

On a related point, surely this forum includes some of the alleged 2000 consultees, do any have a copy of the consultation documents they could link to so that we can all be clear on what exactly was put forward for consultation? Maybe Mr Benstead has a copy?

[gaz]

To continue a Hitchhiker theme I'd concede that Council's communications have not have been written in 30 foot high letters of fire, they're still much better than the "Beware of the Leopard" level of communication that some have been implying.

When the first edition of the re-branded Cycle (content if not title, no advance knowledge) to hit members' doorsteps later this month I currently anticipate at least one thread to be either started or added to along the lines of "Is this an April Fool?"

[TonyR]

Yet members are still shocked and surprised that a rebrand is now taking place.

Whilst you are quite right to say that it has hardly been a secret, I think that it is equally fair to say that it hasn't featured prominently in communication with members

So why didn't PB who sat through those two/three years of Council deliberations and decisions say anything about it here during all that time? He seems overly eager to talk about it now and how wrong it is after three years of radio silence on the subject while Council went through all the steps gaz outlined above to communicate what it was doing to members.

[Steady rider]

http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... 171015.pdf
In October 2015 the issue was still under consideration.