'Refreshing the brand' . . . . . .

[leftpoole]

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.

Hello,
As a reasonably long time Member of the Cyclists Touring Club I reluctantly renewed my membership last Month. I say reluctantly because I used to belong to a cycling club and I wish it still were. In my honest opinion it does not matter a jot that the CTC actually exists as a membership of so few in a country of 70 million or so is a minuscule number. The present bunch of idiots in Downing Street care not a jot! The CTC persons who appear occasionally on BBC News in my opinion make us look a bunch of nuts! If the 'cyclists' on pavements in my Town and the behaviour of motorists to 'cyclists' on the road is anything to go by, I feel real cyclists will be pushed off the roads for ever eventually. What needs to be done is to change road Law to make the motorist initially responsible in every case where a cyclist is involved in an 'accident'. Sustrans ideology is flawed although it does some good work the nature of its schemes are generally getting people riding bikes for fun off the roads.
Why cannot this re-branding nonsense just end? It will not make an iota of difference except that some few people who are getting paid at Head Office!
If you feel that I have written anything offensive I will be surprised, but remember CTC is a tiny little bike Club, it is not British Cycling the sporting organization.
Best regards,
John

[rbreid]

How about "thinking outside the box". Oops did I just say that. Maybe I ought to "get onside". Oh dear there I go again. Or perhaps we could go "down the heritage route". Joking aside and it really is getting beyond a joke. I'd love to see the winged wheel back as the official emblem. Might be worth asking Nick T at Lloyds how many winged wheel decals he currently sells. It graces my bicycles and is understood by those who see it unlike the ad like squiggle. CTC was once run from the ground up, sadly that is no longer apparent. I dont know the answer but it does not IMHO lie in rebranding, maybe undoing the last rebranding would help. I'm actually unsure of where to go but the current situation is confusing and clarity is required IMHO

[leftpoole]

How about "thinking outside the box". Oops did I just say that. Maybe I ought to "get onside". Oh dear there I go again. Or perhaps we could go "down the heritage route". Joking aside and it really is getting beyond a joke. I'd love to see the winged wheel back as the official emblem. Might be worth asking Nick T at Lloyds how many winged wheel decals he currently sells.

I purchased a couple from Nick only this week! On all my bikes because I am a traditionalist but I admit technology in cycling I find great.......but not Rohloff hubs or disc brakes.
John

[PH]

Hello,
As a reasonably long time Member of the Cyclists Touring Club ... What needs to be done is to change road Law to make the motorist initially responsible in every case where a cyclist is involved in an 'accident'. Sustrans ideology is flawed although it does some good work the nature of its schemes are generally getting people riding bikes for fun off the roads.
...but remember CTC is a tiny little bike Club, it is not British Cycling the sporting organization.
Best regards,
John

Can you not see the contradiction between the desire to have a Touring Club and wanting an organisation to campaign on major points of road traffic law?
I keep hearing that people want a touring club, but nobody ever says what they want that club to do. Except turn the clock back to the 1950s

[Si]

Hello,
As a reasonably long time Member of the Cyclists Touring Club ... What needs to be done is to change road Law to make the motorist initially responsible in every case where a cyclist is involved in an 'accident'. Sustrans ideology is flawed although it does some good work the nature of its schemes are generally getting people riding bikes for fun off the roads.
...but remember CTC is a tiny little bike Club, it is not British Cycling the sporting organization.
Best regards,
John

Can you not see the contradiction between the desire to have a Touring Club and wanting an organisation to campaign on major points of road traffic law?
I keep hearing that people want a touring club, but nobody ever says what they want that club to do. Except turn the clock back to the 1950s

+1 to that.
I'm sure that the CTC has lost some things along its way that we would like back, but just stating this does no one any good - there are people at the top who, whether we like it or not, are making decisions as to the future of the CTC. They have given us several chances to air our many views as to where this should be. If all we do is say that "it's rubbish" or "it should be like it was when I joined", well that gives them very little to go on...detail is what we need, what exactly do you want to see changed to improve things?

Two things should be noted here:
- this thread is about branding so that's what we ought to be talking about here. If you have non-branding related ideas start another thread or talk to your Councillor, etc. 'branding' also has overtones of business double talk and HR nonsense, etc...but it is something that we have to have...for instance someone said that we shouldn't bother with any of this branding nonsense and then asked for the winged wheel back - well, getting the winged wheel back is an act of rebranding (by the way, I agree, we should have it back).
- we ask for positive, constructive, workable ideas. This does not include throwing insults at people, demanding people are sacked, etc....that sort of thing just puts N.O. off asking our opinion over things in the future. However, if you believe that a particular policy is rubbish then please feel free to say so and explain why.

Of course, the next question to be asked is: why should I bother giving my opinion if no one is going to listen? Well, they certainly have no chance of listening if you don't give an opinion. And if it all goes pear shaped afterwards, at least you can point at this thread and say "I told you so"

[Mick F]

Of course, the next question to be asked is: why should I bother giving my opinion if no one is going to listen? Well, they certainly have no chance of listening if you don't give an opinion. And if it all goes pear shaped afterwards, at least you can point at this thread and say "I told you so"

General Elections come to mind here?
The minority who don't get a look-in become rather upset with democracy, even if they say their piece.

Just because the majority say something, it doesn't mean everybody agrees.

[thirdcrank]

... - this thread is about branding so that's what we ought to be talking about here. ...

Here goes.

However much anybody deplores phrases like "refreshing the brand," in the modern world of spin, brands play an important part.

The CTC has a proud history going back almost to the invention of the pedal cycle in Victorian times. How cruel then, that in a few months either side of the Millennium celebrations, Sustrans created a stronger brand than the CTC had managed in well over a century. By this I mean that if you were to stop say a hundred members of the public in the street, I think more would have a general idea of what Sustrans did than those who had even heard of the CTC. Of course, when the govt is dishing out the dosh for cycling projects, they have a much better knowledge of such matters, but in government, how things appear to the public is very important and they would find it easier to portray Sustrans as the cycling experts than to have to start explaining what the initials CTC stood for.

For those in-the-know such as the Highways Agency, Sustrans offers everything that the CTC does not, principally a view that cyclists and traffic don't mix. Sustrans doesn't start petitions against the Highway Code, have a subsidiary charity supporting test cases when cyclists are prosecuted for avoiding farcilities and so on. Both organisations depend to some extent on volunteers and I fancy some publicly spirited people are volunteers for both, but while CTC volunteers include thorn-in-the-side Right to Ride reps, with their Ranger hats on it's restricted to things like keeping the vegetation trimmed. Above all, if the HA wants to do things like putting cycle routes on the pavement round a roundabout that's OK by Sustrans, even if it's not their preferred option.

[horizon]

Tonight's Radio 4 Analysis gave a good overview of what happens to charities that take government cash and provide services. Yes, predictably, they act more like companies, refrain from criticising government policy, become less idealistic (for that, read less likely to promote change) and become self serving i.e. exist for themselves. The CTC is probably gearing up to compete in the charities market place and go down this very path. I don't think that is an unkind view: from the CTC's perspective it is perhaps the best way to guarantee survival, it may increase resources and at the end of the day reflects a good business-like approach. Refreshing the brand is only a small and inevitable part of that process so is perhaps just a token discussion - once you have accepted the charity route, all else follows.

But the CTC has a further conundrum to resolve. It is not only a campaigning organisation (and the ability and will to campaign may itself be threatened) but is also an activity club. The CTC may well have to throw the touring-club baby out with the campaigning bath water in order to have a clean bath ready for charity funding. It will be a different organisation. Indeed there will in effect be three CTCs: corporate services, campaigning and club activities. My own loyalty is to the campaigning CTC (I don't go on club runs) as cycling in the UK has a political context.

That might make it appear that I should make common cause with those who want to retain the Winged Wheel and the club philosophy. But that doesn't work for me: I want a CTC that is red in tooth and claw, neither castrated by government funding as a charity nor focussed on Sunday runs.

It could all work together but organisational pressures are huge. I have worked for an organisation (a charity) that became a business-like corporation - the very life blood of change and dissent was squeezed from it by managers anxious to hit targets and conform to external expectations. Of course a clever CTC could pay lip service to various ideals while making no political waves at all. Perhaps that is the way it will go.

[thirdcrank]

It's called "incorporation" and silencing agitators by making them feel important isn't restricted to charities.

I'm sure you won't mind if I mix a couple of metaphors ( ) and suggest that while missing the bus, the CTC has fallen between at least two stools. Sustrans being invited to sit by the driver on one comfy seat. (Excuse the absence of a verb. )

[The Mechanic]

Here is my four pen'eth. I was very much against the conversion to charity status but that is now behind us so let's leave it there, with one comment; there was no reason on earth to change the strapline (I hate that word) from "National Cycling Organisation" to ".....Charity" I don't see the word "charity" in the National Trust's name, neither should it be in ours.

As far as the branding is concerned, I am a bit of a traditionalist and quite like old, original logo badges etc. I would welcome the return of the winged wheel and I feel that the CTC's name should be used more rather than just the initials. It is no wonder the general public don't know what we do. If you asked a lot of people in the high street what NT stands for, I would hazard a guess that most people would not know. If you asked them about the National Trust, however, you might get a different response.

[Keith]

If it's necessary to add "the National Cycling Charity" after the letters CTC so that the great unwashed know who we are, why on earth don't we simply call ourselves "the Cyclists' Touring Club"? As I've said in another thread on this subject, that, after all, is what this CLUB is supposed to be. We're not trying to compete with British Cycling, which is the umbrella organisation for competitive cycling, we're not trying to compete with Sustrans, which is a civil engineering charity that promotes (sometimes misguided) cycle schemes, but we ARE THE national organisation for those who enjoy leisure cycling. That doesn't preclude us putting forward our views on anything to do with cycling, be it road improvements, the Road Justice campaign, better cycle training etc., but let's keep our true identity and tell those in charge in the CTC that we want a 'brand' that reflects what we are, instead of what we are not and never will be.

[thirdcrank]

The brand thing is about much more than a badge and a catch phrase. Ask Gerald Ratner.

[Si]

If it's necessary to add "the National Cycling Charity" after the letters CTC so that the great unwashed know who we are, why on earth don't we simply call ourselves "the Cyclists' Touring Club"? As I've said in another thread on this subject, that, after all, is what this CLUB is supposed to be. We're not trying to compete with British Cycling, which is the umbrella organisation for competitive cycling, we're not trying to compete with Sustrans, which is a civil engineering charity that promotes (sometimes misguided) cycle schemes, but we ARE THE national organisation for those who enjoy leisure cycling. That doesn't preclude us putting forward our views on anything to do with cycling, be it road improvements, the Road Justice campaign, better cycle training etc., but let's keep our true identity and tell those in charge in the CTC that we want a 'brand' that reflects what we are, instead of what we are not and never will be.

I think that it is the word "Touring" that is the problem. None of the day to day leisure cyclists I work with think of themselves as Touring Cyclists....even though what they do is what I would call relaxed day or half day tours. But the thing about the CTC is that "Touring" is its heritage and many would be most upset to see us lose that tag. Yet, we also have to remember that, although we are/were called the Cyclists' Touring Club since fairly early in our history, we have always been about much more, and campaigning / fighting for cyclists rights has always been central to CTC's ethos.

[gaz]

Official update: http://www.ctc.org.uk/local-groups/lett ... -seabright

[Si]

Yep, I got invited to a focus group the other week, unfortunately I was working that evening so couldn't make it, and so can't report back on what the new image choices might be, should there be any at all yet.