'Refreshing the brand' . . . . . .

[drossall]

Official update:

I wonder whether the mentioned reluctance among some potential members to join is about the brand as such, or about the "professionalisation" of cycling. This isn't really a comment about the CTC as such, as about organised cycling as a whole.

Magazines now talk constantly about training and how to get the best out of yourself. Actually, of course, it's rubbish that you need to train for six months, eat the right diet for twelve, take vitamin supplements and find a coach before riding your bike down the road to collect the paper, but that's the way the sport is now portrayed.

At least, that's how it feels when I read a certain Weekly, for example.

That said, people are joining BC, or so I hear.

[gaz]

If the public are lumping the CTC in with the MAMIL ethos then perhaps we have a bigger identity crisis than I could ever have imagined.

[leftpoole]

Official update:

I wonder whether the mentioned reluctance among some potential members to join is about the brand as such, or about the "professionalisation" of cycling. This isn't really a comment about the CTC as such, as about organised cycling as a whole.

Magazines now talk constantly about training and how to get the best out of yourself. Actually, of course, it's rubbish that you need to train for six months, eat the right diet for twelve, take vitamin supplements and find a coach before riding your bike down the road to collect the paper, but that's the way the sport is now portrayed.

At least, that's how it feels when I read a certain Weekly, for example.

That said, people are joining BC, or so I hear.

I do think that the costs of Membership are a barrier to joining. A Club should be a low cost fun thing. The CTC is no longer fun an no longer cost wise!
John

[drossall]

You'll spend an annual membership on one sportive. I don't think that could be called expensive, to be honest.

[Mick F]

I wouldn't have joined CTC at the full membership cost. In fact I put it off for years until I realised I could join as Unwaged.

If I had to pay the full price, I'd be off.

[Philip Benstead]

I wouldn't have joined CTC at the full membership cost. In fact I put it off for years until I realised I could join as Unwaged.

If I had to pay the full price, I'd be off.

Why

If it is cost, please tell how do you gauge value for money?


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bill ... -1900.html


http://www.measuringworth.com/ppoweruk/

http://www.moneysorter.co.uk/calculator_inflation.html

[thirdcrank]

The good old word "thoyle." (And not a contraction of the hole as in "Put t'wood in thoyle." )

It means to justify eg an expense, usually to oneself or perhaps the significant other. It's not necessarily amenable to a cost-benefit analysis because it's based on personal feelings, such as how much you covet something.

It's useful when somebody selling something tries suggesting that the reason a potential punter is reluctant to shell out is that they can't afford it: a powerful jibe when directed at people who are familiar with poverty. "I couldn't thoyle £xx for rubbish like that" is a withering retort or it was when people knew what it meant.

Unlike my grown up children, I rarely use taxi's rather than public transport. They think I'm mean, which in some senses is very true, but I can't thoyle using taxi's.

[Mick F]

Yep.

[PH]

It works out at around 80p a week. Some people must get more than the value of that out of this forum. I can't think of anything else I pay that litle for that gives me as much as the CTC.
Maybe those who consider it too expensive would like to suggest a better way to spend their 80p a week. Quarter pint of bitter? Half a bag of chips? Couple of miles in the bus?...

[thirdcrank]

The "MickF" strand of this thread is about discounted unwaged membership, so the amounts involved are even smaller than the difference between zero and the full membership, but I don't think that's really the point. I suspect that the lack of clarity over "unwaged" is more important than some appreciate. Anyway, accepting for a moment that these sums are insignificant in terms of how much booze etc they represent, that's all the more reason to tighten up the rules on who benefits from concessions, secure in the knowledge or at least the belief the the charity's income would not suffer but rather would be increased quite significantly.

[Mick F]

I agree TC.

To the others ................. why should I pay £41 per year when I can pay £25 per year for the exact same thing?

If the CTC want to tighten the membership rules, that's up to them - not up to me. I'm hardly likely to go to Asda and tell them that their baked beans are too cheap. It's the same in all things in life when you purchase a product ........... you never pay more than you are asked.

[mjr]

It works out at around 80p a week. Some people must get more than the value of that out of this forum. I can't think of anything else I pay that litle for that gives me as much as the CTC.

I've seen frequent comments that this forum is not reflective of CTC and that the official(?) CTC publications don't like the views expressed here. So I don't think the forum is a selling point. As for the rest, I've written my thoughts at viewtopic.php?p=709002#p709002 and viewtopic.php?p=697871#p697871

[PH]

The "MickF" strand of this thread is about discounted unwaged membership,

Is it? Comments such as

If I had to pay the full price, I'd be off.

strike me as being very much about the cost of full price membership.

[Mick F]

Yes, true.

I'm already not particularly happy with the CTC, mainly because of the conversion to a "charity" status. As I'm getting a discount for not being employed, I may carry on. No sure, but I may do. Other option is to join BC.

If CTC make me pay the full price (until I reach 65) I'll be off and withdraw my support.

They can have my £25 .............. or they can have nothing.

[thirdcrank]

The "MickF" strand of this thread is about discounted unwaged membership,

Is it? Comments such as

If I had to pay the full price, I'd be off.

strike me as being very much about the cost of full price membership.

I think it is, even if somebody like Mick doesn't think so. I think if, as a potential customer, you face one price, you have a fairly straightforward choice. Although MickF may not agree and it may not apply to him personally, I suspect fewer people in his position would baulk at paying full whack, at least from the outset. That still applies when closely-defined concessions are available, even though people may be miffed if they don't qualify. However, in this context, the expression "unwaged" is airy-fairy so it's possible to get a discount without eg qualifying by a DSS means test. It's also been suggested that there are few, if any checks.

What I'm saying particularly applies when an arguably slack system has persisted for a while and and tightening up seems to punish those who previously benefited.