BMC to change its name to Climb Britain

Posted by Peter Burnside on 25/07/2016

After more than 70 years trading as the British Mountaineering Council, we’ve decided to move with the times and change name to Climb Britain and unite all our members under one 'Climb' banner.

Hill walking, climbing and mountaineering have evolved since the BMC was first established in 1944, and the name ‘Mountaineering Council’ doesn’t quite cut it these days.

We asked for help from Sport England to solve our dilemma. Could we keep our existing name, yet still reach out to the new generations discovering climbing and hill walking? Was there a new name that could clearly convey all our core beliefs? After a nine-month independent study, sports marketing specialists b-focused and design agency Thinkfarm found the answer.

“BMC members all climb stuff,” they reported back. “Climb is the one word that binds all BMC members together, whether it’s hills, mountains, rocks, ice or indoor walls.”

VIEW: The process that led to Climb Britain

So, today, we're letting all our members know that the BMC will soon become Climb Britain. Our new name will be phased in over the next year, with official launch events at the Kendal Mountain Festival and on 2 December – our 72nd birthday. The BMC’s presence in Wales will become Climb Cymru as part of the rebrand.

The decision is just one part of an ongoing program of modernisation and comes at a time when our partner north of the border – the Mountaineering Council of Scotland – has announced its intention to rebrand as Mountaineering Scotland.

All-round support 

Our name change has also been endorsed by a number of our supporters, such as legendary mountaineer and Everest summiteer Sir Chris Bonington, who says the BMC needed to 'move with the times', and paraclimbing world champion Fran Brown, who says the BMC is 'responding to a period of exponential growth', amongst others.  

Chris Bonington, an 81-year-old BMC Patron and former BMC President, said: “When I started climbing in 1951 there weren’t many climbers, there were just a few clubs, and probably only around five or six specialist retail shops in the country, if that. It was a small community.

“But now, of course, the number of participants has increased hugely and we enjoy our ‘climbing’ in a whole variety of ways. The ‘British Mountaineering Council’ name reflects what the BMC was 50 years ago. It feels heavy and, to a degree, old-fashioned and we are responding accordingly

“The spirit of ‘Climb Britain’ is this – go out, climb whatever you enjoy climbing, and enjoy the outdoors in the UK.”

Mary-Ann Ochota, outdoor TV presenter and hill walking BMC ambassador, said: "Hill walking is a key activity for loads of members and their families. It’s often the first activity many people get involved with when they go to the mountains, and it’s the easiest to get started with. 

"Britain is a small island, but it offers a lifetime of adventure. But it doesn’t need to be the North Face of the Eiger, or a Bouldering World Championship you set your sights on. It could be the hills of the Peak District, or the Brecon Beacons, or the climbing wall at your local leisure centre. It could be a half-day stroll with the kids and a picnic. Whatever you do, Climb Britain will be with you every step of the way."

Read: What does Climb Britain mean for walkers?

Future opportunities

The switch to Climb Britain will create exciting opportunities to extend our reach and influence in future years, and you can be assured that it will be business-as-usual for our core work including access, conservation, environment, safety, good practice, youth development, insurance and mountain heritage.

Under Climb Britain, our core values will remain unchanged: we will continue to promote the interests and protect the freedoms of climbers and walkers and do everything we can to look after the cliff and mountain environment. And, whilst Climb Britain is our new public identity, our formal legal name remains British Mountaineering Council.

READ: Climb Britain – the facts

Over the next few months, we will be working very closely with our affiliated clubs, associate members, Mountain Training, Mountaineering Scotland, Climb Cymru, the climbing walls and the GB Climbing Team to explain what the change means and investigate the many new opportunities that arise.

Our new name will be phased in over the next year, with official launch events at the Kendal Mountain Festival and on 2 December – our 72nd birthday. In the meantime, keep an eye on our website and social media as we take the first steps of this exciting journey.

- Dave Turnbull, chief executive officer at the BMC (Climb Britain)


Read more about Climb Britain

BMC to change its name to Climb Britain
After more than 70 years as the British Mountaineering Council, we’ve decided to move with the times and unite all our members under one 'Climb' banner.

Climb Britain: the facts
We take a look at the facts behind the change to Climb Britain.

What does Climb Britain mean for walkers?
Changing to Climb Britain won't affect our work for walkers – find out more.

Climb Britain: a personal message from BMC CEO Dave Turnbull
Dave Turnbull gives a behind-the-scenes look at the process.

Climb Britain: Update from the BMC
It's been a rocky ride this last few days, and it's probably fair to say we didn’t quite anticipate the level of interest there would be in our Climb Britain announcement.


« Back

Post a comment Print this article

This article has been read 47128 times

TAGS

Click on the tags to explore more

RELATED ARTICLES

How to get Summit magazine
8
How to get Summit magazine

Summit magazine is mailed direct to all BMC individual members four times a year. Club members get one printed copy in March. And now all members - that's both Individual & Club members - can freely download every issue via iTunes or Play with a valid BMC membership number.
Read more »

What does Climb Britain mean for walkers?
16
What does Climb Britain mean for walkers?

Britain’s mountains have probably never been climbed by so many people. And the vast majority of those people are walkers. Here’s why the BMC’s new name applies to them too.
Read more »

Climb Britain: the facts
31
Climb Britain: the facts

Since we announced the start of our journey to Climb Britain, we’ve had some great responses on UKclimbing, Twitter and Facebook. Some positive, some negative – and all passionate.
Read more »

Post a Comment
Posting as Anonymous Community Standards
3000 characters remaining
Submit
Your comment has been posted below, click here to view it
Comments are currently on | Turn off comments
178
1) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
"Climb" - I assume that skiing/ski mountaineering no longer matters? But on a serious point, does this not show a pandering to commercialisation and the chasing of ethereal zeitgeists (like a 'trendy' name on social media), mainly of those in a bouldering wall, and inevitably a loss of emphasis of of the BMC post-war foundation, like access for the common person (member and non-member alike) [to areas that have little to do with 'climb']?
Change for changes sake?
2) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Can't say I'm impressed, seems to me that changing the name generates more heat than light. 'Climb Britain' sounds like gimmicky injunction and although hill-walkers climb hills, 'climb' sounds more like something (rock) climbers do. Or should hill-walkers join the RA? As for Britain, shouldn't that be either 'England', seeing as the Scots and Welsh have their own organisations, or 'UK' if it's an umbrella organisation, at least while there still is an UK?
3) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
For over 70 years The British Mountaineering Council has done great work and built up its reputation. While I appreciate the need to keep fresh and up with current thinking, I feel it's a shame to see the name that we identify with disappear. Does 'Climb Britain' encompass everything that The BMC stands for either?
4) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
As a hillwalker who thinks the BMC do very little for us anyway, I'll definitely not be renewing my subscription.

absolutely hideous logo btw.
5) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Is the BMC a membership organisation? If so where was the membership consultation that lead to this decision being made? The cost of this study has been taken from membership fees I suspect and the cost of rebranding will be enormous and completely unjustified. I want my money back! This is not what I pay membership fees for. I know not everyone is keen on competition climbing but we've currently got the best female competition boulderer in the world and yet "we can't afford" to host a round of the world cup here!?
6) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
The new name is terrible and has no grammatical sense like hike a mountain. Stick with the old name or find a decent new one.
7) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
"After a nine-month independent study, sports marketing specialists b-focused and design agency Thinkfarm found the answer."

What a waste of time and money...
8) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Depressingly generic. I hope good funding comes to compensate for such a change.
9) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Depressingly generic. I hope good funding comes to compensate for such a change.
10) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Well, that's one less Direct debit that will be leaving my account from now on.
11) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
I like the new name but a bit concerned that this decision was taken without the consultation of all the members of the BMC. Would have preferred to have been engaged with this process and do not recall any notification of this project underway either on the BMC website or in Summit. Good idea guys, great name, but next time, please include the membership!
12) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Rebranding is SOOOoooo last decade
13) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Did I miss something? were the members asked?
Sometimes, history and tradition are the foundations of a progressive and forward thinking organisation. The name, BMC, grounds a love for adventurous experience. It provides a bedrock on which all the 'games' we play can sit; climbing, walking and yes being in the mountains whatever your definition of a mountain might be.
I feel that Climb.....'whatever' – is plastic and transitory packaging from the 'thinkfarm' (I personally associate farms with a lot of manure; I don't think they are going to re-brand as ****-England).
We're not Sport (Sport England), we're not Canoeing (Paddlesport England), we're not a special case ...... but we are the BMC, and proud to be the BMC.

So BMC, though I respect the grandees, please ask the thousands of British Mountaineers the Council represents - what they think.

BMC member - Dave Larkin
14) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
This is a poor name change. It makes the body look far less professional. Looks like you want a far narrower catchment target as though the organisation is aimed at rock climbers more than anything else. Mountaineering is so much more than that and BMC did and should encompass them all. Mountaineering should have stayed somewhere in the name. If we want to change the name what’s wrong with Mountaineering Britain? Where is the consultation with members never mind some marketing agency and design agency who probably took a good chunk of my membership fee this year. As an alpine ski tourist this doesn’t feel a very inclusive step. If I’m not wanted I’ll have to go (with my membership and expensive insurance and further fee if I want a reduction in alpine hut costs) elsewhere. Austrian Alpine Club UK branch is a lot cheaper and will get me reduced prices in huts. This name is dull, uninteresting, poorly targeted, cheap sounding and not inclusive.
15) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
What monies have been spent on the consultancy with b-focussed and Thinkfarm? What additional spend will be required on re-branding? What assets will be written down/un-used due to the BMC name & logo no longer being used?

As a long-term member of the BMC I have felt engaged and informed about the changes, their drivers and justification of the change. I do not feel engaged or informed about the change to "Climb Britain" or the reasons/justifications for it happening.

How will that gap in engagement and the cost questions above be addressed?
16) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
What monies have been spent on the consultancy with b-focussed and Thinkfarm? What additional spend will be required on re-branding? What assets will be written down/un-used due to the BMC name & logo no longer being used?

As a long-term member of the BMC I have felt engaged and informed about the changes, their drivers and justification of the change. I do not feel engaged or informed about the change to "Climb Britain" or the reasons/justifications for it happening.

How will that gap in engagement and the cost questions above be addressed?
17) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Did you think about consulting your members on this change? I don't recall seeing anything about this until today, and I am deeply unhappy about it. I thought the BMC had more respect for its members and for the traditions of its name and heritage, and this appears to exhibit neither. Very disappointed - wondering if it is worth renewing my membership this year.
25/07/2016
Do you not think it courteous to ask members ?
19) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Awful, awful decision. No wonder your kept this one quiet. It is absolutely horrible and I have no desire at all to be associated. I will take my membership money elsewhere. I was proud of the BMC, and proud to be a member. This is a totally spurious piece of unnecessary rebranding for what purpose exactly? Is heritage something to be ashamed of these days?
20) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
And not one comment in the announcement from our Hill Walking Development Officer despite the majority of BMC members (62% in the 2010 survey) identifying Hill/Mountain Walking as their primary mountain-related activity.

Come on Carey, give us your thoughts.
21) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Sounds like a gimmick without substance. Not impressed.
22) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Point 24 of The BMC's latest annual accounts states:

The company is not controlled by any one individual but overseen by the Board of Directors and National Council; and ultimately the body of the full membership

I think I am probably not alone in feeling that this point has been rather forgotten in recent years by the executive. A change of name should have been put to the membership, not a think-tank.
23) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Will BMC members be informed of how much the process has cost and how much extra revenue will be generated as a result of the change? I would also be interested to know more about why this rebranding was required beyond what has been said in this article.
24) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Disappointed that history and tradition are considered so poorly that they are so readily discarded. 'Climb' is a narrowing of the BMC context. Whereas this was an ideal opportunity to broaden the reach to the public by highlighting relationships with health & relaxation, art & culture, agriculture & preservation etc...
And hey, what about opening up the naming to the members... or did you fear a Mounty McMountface?
25) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
A sad day for British mountaineering to be honest - so we have Climb Britain, Climb Cymru, what about N Ireland and Scotland what are they to become? To be perfectly honest something like Mountaineering UK would have been a better all encompassing name.
26) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
I find it shocking that the BMC found it necessary to use their resources on a 'nine-month independent study' to change the name that nobody had any issue with, rather than promoting the sport in tangible ways, sponsoring projects that help inclusion and promote diversity in climbing, or focusing on access and conservation work.
27) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Not quite Boaty McBoatFace but paying how much to consultants (so it must be right) - but when were the Membership ever consulted ?
A case of Committee knows best - but engage Experts to back it up with academese to take the legs from any dissent.
28) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Rather than just explain-cum-justify the rebranding to members, it would have been good to involve us earlier in the process. I am a member of another national organisation which has done just the same - I imagine that it seemed like a good idea at the time but to me it suggests a disconnect between HQ and membership. I think that the new name sounds like a tacky advertising slogan with its exhortation to climb and, as noted elsewhere does not sit well with the Scottish and Welsh counterparts. As a fell walker, it has always been my impression that the BMC rated climbing above walking and, despite the protestations, this reinforces it.
29) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Waste of time money and effort.

What a joke, but what can you expect from two companies called b-focused and thinkfarm.







30) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
I agree with other contributors. 'To Climb' in human terms involves the use of hands and feet. Climb Britain sounds like a sponsored event. To all our hill and mountain walking members this new branding is an oxymoron. Mountaineering Britain encapsulates all the disciplines you purport to represent why not use it?
25/07/2016
Has democracy died in Britain
What about asking the members their views. You have made a big mistake if you think you can ride roughshod over the membership.
BMC Member Keith Sutton
32) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Dictionary.com defines climb as follows:

To climb is to make one's way upward, often with effort: to climb a mountain. Ascend, in its literal meaning (“to go up”), is general, but it now usually suggests a gradual or stately movement, with or without effort, often to a considerable degree of altitude: to ascend the heights; to ascend the Himalayas.

So I have no issue with the new name. If anything this excludes rock climbing maybe. As for being consulted well I'm not so worried either. There are far too many other issues to worry about in the world.

"Climb Britain" sounds good to me. Don't be fearful of change. This is how we progress.
33) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
As a name 'Climb Britain' is instantly forgettable, unlike the 'BMC'. As other comments I have to agree - gimmicky for the sake of change.

Maybe a bit old fashioned but, I always thought that I walked in the Hills and Mountains and climbed on crags. I guess I'll just have to 'climb' into my cross country skis too now.
34) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
The name "Climb Britain" does not represent all of the mountain sports covered by the BMC, it is very unprofessional and does not even describe its purpose. It sounds much more like a one-off sponsored charity event than a professional body.

I personally consider "British Mountaineering Council" to be significantly better, and in the greater interest of its members. I am concerned that this change will have a negative effect and result in a reduction in membership or focus. By far the best option would be to remain as the BMC.
35) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Hi I'm a member of 'Mountaineering Scotland' (new name), which the members were consulted about. I'm also a BMC member. Did I miss the consultation?
kind regards
JB
36) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
As the previous commenter said Climb Britain doesn't embrace the wider umbrella community such as hillwalkers, scramblers, skiers and boulderers. It was your publicity drive to attract hillwalkers which drew me into becoming a member. There seems to have been a long established hierarchy which has always put climbers at the top of the pile, not that they aren't awesome but they are only one strand. I hope that the other branches of the organisation will continue to grow too.
37) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
If we don't have to tradition anymore, can i peg my way up Cenotaph Corner ?
25/07/2016
Just another shite idea in a recent history of bad ideas!! Whose stupid idea was this?? And don't tell me how many luminaries endorsed it,i want to know the guilty bugger!!
39) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Like most, I don't like this trend for names that seems to be tailored towards search engine optimisation above other considerations. If The BMC wanted to sound more 'up to date', simply dropping the Council from the name would have been enough and a much simpler transition, while still representing all interests: 'British Mountaineering'.
40) john cook
25/07/2016
We have just spent the last three years trying to convince the hill walkers that we are not just about climbing, but about all hill and mountain activity then this? Lets forget the walkers and call ourselves climb and send them to the ramblers association!
I attend most Peak BMC meetings and this was never, to my knowledge, mentioned so that we could discuss, comment and vote on the idea. So much for including the members and being inclusive! It is a non-entity of a name and could mean anything, climb stairs, climb ropes, climb ladders. The British Mountaineering Council had a certain gravitas about it, but now we are just another 'trendy' named group. So disappointed.
41) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
what about Walk Hills and Walk Mountains!!! Climbing is not the soul activity of the Hills, Fells and Mountains. Sack whoever made this call and wasted members money with a poinless rebranding

If Climb Cymru in Wales then why not Climb England rather than Britain
42) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Well done - we all know that the BMC wasn't really serious about hillwalkers, in spite of them being in the majority of members, but it looks like you've also alienated a lot of climbers as well. Do you want to be part of the Brexit negotiations?
43) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
what about Walk Hills and Walk Mountains!!! Climbing is not the soul activity of the Hills, Fells and Mountains. Sack whoever made this call and wasted members money with a poinless rebranding

If Climb Cymru in Wales then why not Climb England rather than Britain
44) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Jumping on the trendy bandwagon then. Is there really a need to change the name? Especially as it does what it says on the tin. I see a very expensive bit of trend following pr rather than something meaningful, I guess some marketing 'genius' is getting a nice holiday out of this at least ;-) . I feel a facepalm moment coming on and a lack of respect for the history of the organisation.
45) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Can't remember this being proposed previously. Several good points have been made by others, how much has this cost, how much will it cost in the future, what hasn't been funded as a result, doesn't it go against the efforts of trying to prove to hill walkers that the BMC is inclusive and not just about climbing. Mountaineering is about so much more than climbing, it's about people, landscapes, being in wild places, tradition and many other things including climbing. The biggest risk is in that changing the name will make people presume it's only about climbing and then over the years, it will eventually evolve to reflect that.
46) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
This is a mistake. Climbing is a very narrow and specific term used to describe scaling something using all 4 limbs. Most, if not all, mountains in the UK can be scaled without climbing. I would also guess that the majority of people who go up UK mountains are not climbers. This change will have a detrimental effect on membership as it appears to be narrowing the focus of the BMC to climbers alone leaving out hill and mountain walkers and other mountain enthusiasts.
47) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Really disappointed in the rebranding of the British Mountaineering Council to a pathetic, transparent attempt to court Olympic funding.

For the past 10 years I have been proud to be a member of an orgslanisation that values its members opinion and represents the rich history and tradition of mountaineering activities in Britain.

Sadly I will not be renewing my membership as I feel my financial and personal contributions will be squandered. Just how much of the membership's subscription fees were wasted consulting "experts" and how much note will be wasted on the actual rebranding?

Sad to leave, but until The BMC respects and consults its membership, I cannot remain a member.
48) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
I'd like to propose a motion at next year's AGM to change it back. Anyone second it?
49) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Out of all the fantastic responses, what proportion would you say has been positive? 1%, maybe less?
Besides the fact the change and motives behind it are clearly unwanted by the people you supposedly represent, the simple fact that you hired a blind person with the artistic flare of a bean sprout is repugnant. I don't care who paid for it, or how much it cost, you paid too much. Even if it's free, you paid too much. It's gross looking.
On top of that you apparently paid some other consultancy to figure out what climbers wanted. Again, they took you for a ride, cos they've clearly got it very, very wrong. Climb isn't the same, it doesn't incorporate everyone who used to be a BMC member.
Can I suggest that the remit for representing mountain pursuits and activities in the outdoors be removed from this new sport climbing governing body. Both are equally valid but both require different approaches and priorities and you lot are clearly not capable anymore.
50) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
"All-round Support"? It sounds more like all-round incredulity and resentment, if you ask me. Not least because the very members of the association formerly known as the BMC weren't consulted - not about the name, not about the connotations with respect to other mountain-related activities such as ski-mountaineering and hill-walking, not about the cost in good-will, not about cost in hard currency and, most importantly, not about the change in direction that this re-branding represents: a shift towards a role as the governing body of a competitive sport instead of that of a representative body of a community of mountaineers.
25/07/2016
Sorry, not impressed with this name change/rebranding idea, Rehan. It is important to realise that the original reason for the BMC in the first place is as a REPRESENTATIVE body for climbers and mountaineers, NOT as a trading organization!
52) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Another vote of dissent.

This is CLEARLY, CLEARLY a blatant attempt to throw it all on red to become the face of Olympic climbing (come on... speed climbing!?!?) and shower in the glory, while forgetting that the bread and butter, bricks and mortar are hillwalkers and outdoor climbers.
If the BMC wanted Olympic glory, it should have spun up a separate entity (where the new name could've been used), rather than gut the existing one.
53) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
I am disappointed that the membership was not invited to comment on this before a final decision was made.
54) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Amazing! "Climb Britain" what genius came up with that? Sounds like it is the work of the guy that came up with Boaty McBoatface, lol.
Seriously, the BMC is a well known brand that people know and trust, a name with authority, a name that members can feel proud to be members of. As for "Climb Britain", well that just sounds cheap and makes like sense if you are separating out Wales and Scotland, wouldn't Climb England make more sense. I for one do not at all like the idea of separating out the countries, we are one nation!
This was a ridiculous idea, this would be like McDonalds changing their name to McBurgers or Tesco changing their name to Food Kingdom, haha... ridiculous!
55) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
This new name / brand is awful, it cheapens the BMC, makes it seem like some sort of charity climb fundraiser setup. It carries no weight, no authority, no sense of the history of climbing or the culture.

Change it back!
25/07/2016
BMC sounds better I think! Not to blunt the modernisation of it but it's become a name known by many. Doesn't need to be changed. It is what it is and does what it says on the tin. We as the members should have been at the very least consulted about this prior to any decision making!
57) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
The BMC is funded by its members, is meant to be a voice for members - yet no members were consulted in this decision, how can that make sense? I'm deeply unimpressed. Not being consulted is bad enough, but that the name change also denotes a huge change in direction. An extra-ordinary AGM should be called or members will vote with their feet.
58) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
I dislike this idea. Please don't do it. The British Mountaineering Council sounds like a serious organisation, and the name describes what you do and represent well. The BMC is well known, and changing the name undermines brand recognition for no reason. Climb Britain might be OK as the headline for a marketing campaign, it does not work as the name of the organisation. It sounds wrong, and it's grammatically suspect. It clearly alienates walkers, whereas mountaineering has long been accepted to encompass a range of mountain based activities. Doing this without consulting members shows a disgusting contempt for members. If the BMC needs any change to make it seem more relevant to members it is the services provided that need to change not the name. You could start with a reasonably priced insurance policy, maybe like the Austrian Alpine Club offers UK members.
25/07/2016
This is an appalling and anti-democratic move that basically signals that BM COUNCIL is telling its "council" of local clubs to get stuffed. I will now work even harder to get the local club that I have served and supported for over forty years to get the hell out of this bloated commercial company that pretends to run British mountaineering. From whence came the mandate for this Change? I do not recall it being on the agenda of the last AGM or being subject to a vote of the membership.

In this I do not want to be anonymous. I am Dave Unwin, Leicester Bowline and proud of it (the club that is).
25/07/2016
Since when was the principality that I love not a part of Britain?

Dave Unwin (again)
25/07/2016
"All-round support"?!

There are now over 70 comments on this article, and of the ones that have been moderated and are currently visibly, every single one is complaining that either the name change is a terrible idea, or the members should have been consulted. Claiming you have all-round support is like claiming the NHS will get £350M extra every week.
62) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Just to echo previous comments I find it really disappointing that the BMC considers itself a 'brand'. I was under the impression that my subs were supporting a charitable organisation that spend their money wisely not a business that wastes it in ways such as this. In light of this I feel that I need to reconsider my direct debit membership something which I never thought would happen. I see the rational for a name change, when I first joined I was confused about what the council bit really meant, but this seems to signal a change in a worrying direction.
25/07/2016
What a poor idea!

Insignia would have made more sense!?!?!
64) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Extremely disappointed. My organisation. My qualifications. My livelihood. My fellow BMC members decisions...Don't do it guys, don't do it. Wrong move. I respect the organisation but this is a big, wrong, move.
Barry Howard BMC member. ML
25/07/2016
In the middle of the new logo there appears to be a swastika. What a bunch of muppets...
25/07/2016
This seems a sad day for what has always been professional organisation who now appear like a social media group. That isn't what I became a member for, I joined an organisation which was reputable and deserved respect. Sorry Climb Britain sounds like a charity event or Facebook forum.
67) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
I am really disappointed - partly in the shift to a less inclusive name, but especially at the lack of consultation. The BMC is only the National _Governing_ Body for competition climbing. For the rest of us it is our National _Representative_ Body, and what kind of _Representative_ body changes its name without consulting its members?

'Council' has been disappearing from similar bodies for years, and the word 'British' became an exaggeration in 1970 when the Scots exited, so a name might have merit (so might retaining a strong brand). Stating that some climbers don't associate with the word 'mountaineering' may be true, but many hillwalkers, mountaineers and ski-mountaineers don't associate with 'climbing'. How sure are we that there is a net gain to be had, and is a 'net gain' justified in any case if you alienate a big part of your core membership?

The 'everyone climbs' argument is about as justified (and daft) as if 'England Athletics' rebranded as 'England Running' on the grounds that all field sports - even high jump and shot put - involve a bit of running!

The Irish and Scottish Councils have moved to "Mountaineering X" for their name updates (after consulting their members, apparently). When the home nation Mountain Leader Training Boards re-branded, they did it consistently, so why not the Councils? Let's hope that the BMC listens to the massive adverse feedback and has a re-think both about consultation and about the name. If not, this is a sad day indeed.

Please note - I am not anonymous, I am Jonathan White and am positing this in my capacity as an Individual Member of the BMC, a former BMC Management Committee Member and BMC Chair of Training, not in my capacity as a Committee Member of the Alpine Club.
68) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
It would have been really nice to have been consulted on this. I was only reflecting (fondly) yesterday that I have been a member for about ten years now of "The British Mountaineering Council" and then read this, I am very angry, frustrated and feel betrayed in so many ways. Just because a name is old does not mean you have to change it to move with the times. Should we rebrand "The British Army" "Fight Britain?".
69) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Like 99% of the people who's comments I've read on this website, on Facebook and on UKC, to say I'm disappointed would be an understatement. Partly because Climb Britain fails in every way to explain what the organisation is (it doesn't even sound like an organisation, more of a Facebook group someone has started), and partly because no attempt was made to find out the opinion of members of the BMC like myself. I'd like to think that somebody will have the guts to admit they were wrong and reverse the decision, given that I can probably count the number of positive comments I've read about the change on one hand, but I won't hold my breath.
70) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
I would not call the BMC an "organisation". I would call the BMC an "institution" in the grandest use of the phrase. Similar to other world renown institutions like the Royal Society, the American Alpine Club or the International Olympic Committee. Institutions stand as pinnacles in times of change and challenge. Institutions do not simply change and morph because of the vagaries of public opinion, outcry and popularity. Institutions remember their purpose, and stand by that purpose, and remember that the towers of the future are built on the foundations of the past. Institutions remind us of the need for care in times of turbidity, and tweak and jiggle, rather than crash and smash. When insitutions come to change, they do so with vehemence and slow, monolithic purpose after long discussion (not dissimilar to an Ent moot). This is how I regarded the BMC. Now, it seems, the BMC is content to become an "organisation", trying to find the highest of the white horses rather than be content to sit upon the wave. How long before the IOC become "Run World"?
71) Anonymous User
25/07/2016
Totally pointless but you could have at least avoided this irritating trend of completely misusing capital letters - no wonder we struggle to get kids to use them correctly in school. I'm not one for change but first impression are taking a respected historical name and making it sound like a game show. Can't fathom the logic.
72) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
This shows at best a complete lack of judgement, and at worst a worrying level of interference from the funding body (sport England). Unnecessary rebrand and at what cost? (both financial and for future membership). The fact that the bmc has worked for over 70 yrs should have told your consultants all they needed to know. Climbing changed much more dramatically between the 40s-80s than it has in the time since then, You know by now that the new name and logo look like a cheap imitation of sports direct or similar.
Yours, a hill walker, indoor climber, trad climber. 22. .
73) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
Please sign the petition to stop the BMC changing it's name to Climb Britian.

https://www.change.org/p/british-mountaineering-council-stop-the-bmc-from-changing-its-name?recruiter=578416178&utm_source=petitions_show_components_action_panel_wrapper&utm_medium=copylink
74) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
Well I climb all around the world and the BMC insure me. I feel whilst its a BRitish Organisation it should have a global outlook. Climb Britain says just that. Climb in Britain. The BMC suggest an English body for climbers. Dont get it at all. Its a bit Brexit. Lets make Britain great...it was and is. I dont understand it quite frankly.
75) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
I really hope this is some kind of a bad joke. While I approve of the "moving with times" direction, is this name change really necessary? For one, not only does "Climb Britain" sound ridiculous and unprofessional, but the key is the word "climb". Does this really encompass all of what the BMC stands for? I personally associate "climb" exclusively with rock climbing w/o any other mountain activities. "Mountaineering Scotland" makes sense and is inclusive of all activities, but "Climb Britain"?! Mountaineering should remain part of the name if the organisation is to continue to be involved with all related activities.

It is also incredibly sad that no member polling ever happened. In my view members should have been consulted or at least given a set of choices to vote on and express their opinion. Name change just for the sake of it doesn't make any sense. The only name change that would have been more sensible is to replace the British part of it with English given that the BMC doesn't really encompass all of Britain and Scotland has it's own. Unless of course the BMC becomes more of a parent organisation to the local ones.

Epic fail...

- Shocked BMC Member
76) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
Instead of dumbing-down the organisation (and all its existing members) to the levels of the young trendies, the money could have been better spent getting out there and educating the 'new generation' that their chosen activity forms part of a broad range. I notice on Grough they draw an analogy with 'The Ramblers' name change. But The Ramblers retained the key part of the name that was their identity; had BMC done the same as MCoS and renamed to Mountaineering Britain, I agree this would have been a far better decision, retained our identity and better promoted inclusiveness of all the activities that its members enjoy. But from the total lack of response to the comments on here (well, those few that have so far passed the moderator) and on Facebook I rather think the BMC is just hoping everyone will eventually just shut up and allow them to force through this change that they failed to consult their members over.
77) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
Dissapointed to hear this. I think the BMC was a much better name for the organisation. Plus its a shame that Sport England can't see past Olympic Medals. Competition is not the only worthwhile aspect of sport.
78) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
I echo the comments on lack of consultation, and particularly on spending our (or public) money on 'rebranding consultants' when there must be enough ideas and creativity amongst the staff let alone the membership - a less than helpful message to send to members and staff alike I think about their value?
79) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
As a designer and also member of the BMC I'd like to express my dissatisfaction with the quality of design of the new logo. Regardless of the reasons for changing, if you replace a recognisable and decent (not perfect, but still good) logo and brand identity with something completely new, it should offer something equal too or better than the existing design. Forget the name for a moment, the new logo looks clunky, amateurish and will date very quickly. It lacks sophistication yet seems to be trying to make up for it with too many ideas and elements. It looks cheap. How will it work at small sizes? Viewing this as I am on mobile, I've got an instant comparison between new an old at the top of the page, and it doesn't look great. 'Britain' is illegible, and I'm sure this will be an issue in other applications. Did your design studio advise you on current design thinking and recent design history? There are great examples of brands stripping back the identity to the basics, achieving a real clarity of voice and linking to their heritage (Tate, Co-op, and MasterCard all recent 'big' brands going down this route). This is the opposite, choosing shiny and new, bells and whistles, naff and disposable and dumping the refinement, elegance and heritage. I'm predicting redesign in the near future. Total missed opportunity .
80) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
So is it England, or Britain? It doesn't make sense to me geographically or organisationally. It looks a cheap crappy logo that will go well on a team GB shell suit, but has nothing to do with how I spend my time on the hills. I feel that the membership should have been consulted on this BEFORE the announcement as I believed the BMC was OUR organisation. Now I realise that I am a just customer of an organisation that is trying to move away from why I originally joined. Climb Britain will have to work very hard to encourage me to renew my subscription.

Yours,

Disenfranchised of Tunbridge Wells.
81) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
I have been a member of the BMC for several decades and feel I must let you know that I am appalled by the process leading to the new name and I am shocked by what this process has delivered. The new name and logo are truly terrible, and do not in my view reflect what the BMC has been doing during the long period of my membership. I am an all round mountaineer: yes I climb rock & ice routes but in all my years of hill and mountain walking I do not consider that I have climbed a walk. Keith.
82) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
Why so many posts awaiting moderation - they can't all be libellous/obscene. Don't say this has taken you by surprise BMC.
83) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
Love the colors and the name a brilliant way for the youth to drive forward social media based on what they find fun in the outdoors, good steps forward.
26/07/2016
What a joke. Nine months to come up with a new name which is inferior to the old one. A waste of time and money.

Is this driven by the demands of funding streams?

Jonathan Reti
26/07/2016
http://www.mcofs.org.uk/news.asp?s=2&id=MCS-N11796&nc=Information Please read the highlighted last paragraph. It's just such a pity that we, the members weren't involved in the process!
86) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
From a graphic design point of view, changing a known brand will always cause up-raw weather its for better or worse till people get used to it. Unless you make changed in small increments you will never have a happy audience. That being said,

What was an iconic logo in the outdoor world will become a poorly designed logo that looks like it was taken from a cheap stock site with a horrible typeface thrown in.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for change, keeping the brand fresh and up to date, but I have to agree with everyone else. It is a big leap backwards from such an iconic brand.
87) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
In my experience, having been through several rebranding exercises, the costs associated with rebranding will outweigh any benefits and leave your membership wondering why you bothered with such futility. Stick with the "BMC". Its history should be preserved. You already have the walking, climbing etc under the BMC name. Spend the money on something else.
88) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
Terrible name and not a particularly good logo either.
Stick to BMC. People know it, it's a strong name and recognised worldwide. And mountaineering much better covers all those areas brought up that 'climb'.

89) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
'The BMC' is a brand, respected and with history behind it.
'Climb Britain' sounds like a cheap internet start-up.
Mountaineering far more accurately portrays the work of this fantastic organisation.
Was this put to a vote at a committee meeting?
Please reconsider!
90) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
I have some magic beans for sale ,anyone at the BMC/Clamber Britain interested?
91) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
The BMC/CB website says
"Why weren’t members part of the decision-making process?
Major decisions are made by the Executive Committee (the Board of Directors) and the National Council, both comprised of elected volunteers. The rebranding proposal was unanimously agreed by the BMC Board of Directors on 18 May. It then went to the National Council meeting on 18 June, where it was agreed 19 for, 1 abstention (due to being a new member) and 0 against."
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/climb-britain-the-facts

This is gutless corporate-speak for '(a) It's none of their business, and (b) they would have given us the wrong answer'.

The website also says "Since we announced the start of our journey to Climb Britain, we’ve had some great responses on UKclimbing, Twitter and Facebook. Some positive, some negative – and all passionate."

This is more gutless corporate-speak for "Since we announced the end of our journey into mindless corporate re-branding, we've been slagged rotten - the feedback has been overwhelmingly negative but we will follow the rebranding guidelines and be nicey-nice while digging our heels in until our members give up".
92) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
We struggle to get hill walkers to join our mountaineering club because they are two worried that they aren't good enough climbers yet. Even though we reassure them that we have a 48% walker membership. Its going to make our lives even harder when they see the membership form.
With one swipe of a pen 71 years of history is lost, very sad. Anyone asked Gwen Moffat I would be interested to hear?
93) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
Mountaineering Britain would be more accurate and inclusive than Climb Britain and work well with Mountaineering Scotland & Mountaineering Wales. Not every mountaineer climbs, they scramble, abseil, boulder, ski and cycle! Climb Britain does not seem to be a good choice of Logo/Brand
94) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
Mountaineering Britain would be more accurate and inclusive than Climb Britain and work well with Mountaineering Scotland & Mountaineering Wales. Not every mountaineer climbs, they scramble, abseil, boulder, ski and cycle! Climb Britain does not seem to be a good choice of Logo/Brand
95) Alex Messenger (staff comment)
26/07/2016
Hi everyone.

Many thanks for all the comments. If you'd like your comment to get published without moderation, please login. We have to moderate each individual anonymous comment, which does take time.

There have been lots of questions about changing to Climb Britain, so have a read of these articles:

A personal message from BMC CEO Dave Turnbull
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/climb-britain-a-personal-message-from-bmc-ceo-dave-turnbull

Climb Britain: the facts
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/climb-britain-the-facts

What does Climb Britain mean for walkers?
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/what-climb-britain-means-for-walkers
96) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
"ClimbBritain" has a notable similarity to "Climb2020" (the attempt to get sport climbing into the Olympics for 2020). This includes the use of "teamGB" colours for the logo. Is this merely coincidence? The BMC had an opportunity here to introduce "climbBritain" alongside "the BMC" for its sport and competition climbing arm. Many would have supported this whole-heartedly. Instead, I fear that the result of the rebrand will be disenfranchisement among the mountaineering and hill-walking members of the former BMC. The document showing how the new logo was designed is interesting, but just emphasises how the inspiration was taken from indoor climbing walls. What a shame that members were not consulted on the name change (unlike members of the MCofS).
26/07/2016
Indoor climbing and associated competitions have never fitted well with the BMC core values as it has little to do with mountaineering and real climbing. In fact the majority of people attending my local climbing wall have never climbed out doors and never wish to do so, for them indoor climbing is just an alternative to a conventional gym. Therefore by changing the name to enable you to claim that you include this group you are in fact dumbing down and disenfranchising the people who do real climbing, hill walking and mountaineering.
26/07/2016
What is the process or procedure the membership would need to follow to formally ask for the name change decision to be reviewed?
26/07/2016
What is the process or procedure the membership would need to follow to formally ask for the name change decision to be reviewed?
100) Freelancer
26/07/2016
I have always supported the BMC and have been very grateful of the services they provide. The British Mountaineering Council has a special place in the world and carries with it proud, rich history and a tradition of representing all users of Britain's mountainous, upland, lowland and coastal areas, regardless of if they were members or not.

Climb Britain is by comparison a gimmicky campaign, riding on the back of current nationalistic tendencies (very original colour scheme, though Nick Griffin might sue for copyright), how long before a new rebranding process is begun as not enough likes have been generated?

By all means incorporate Climb Britain as sub section of The BMC, but please keep it the BMC.

My membership is due for renewal in September, however it won't be getting renewed for a gimmick, it will be renewed if there is a professional, representative body with the gravitas and weight of history and tradition behind it.

Matt Ferris, British Mountaineering Council member. Not a member of Climb Britain
101) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
If you don't like the rebranding please take 2 minutes to sign this petition https://www.change.org/p/say-no-to-the-bmc-rebranding
102) John Booth
26/07/2016
Dave

Why has this not featured in any BMC discussion at any meeting open to the members?

Members should be given the opportunity to debate this at area committee, also all member clubs should be given opportunity to discuss this internally. Please organise some area meetings where members can explain to the current Exec why this is a really bad idea.

This change will confuse the Universities and individual University clubs, ‘The BMC’ covers all mountain activities ‘Climb Britain’ sounds like its only for ‘climbing clubs’, do we really want to stop representing / informing the student clubs? The timing of this announcements prevents the student clubs from voicing comment as they will not return until October.

The perception (whilst totally untrue) the BMC does little for hill walkers is reinforced by the name change.

Let's not forget the 70 years of trust built up with land owners. 'Climb Britain' is far more offensive to a land owner than 'British mountaineering council '

This is a poor decision and poorly made behind closed doors, announced to members without opportunity to comment. The ‘Organisation’ is better than this.

Members deserve detailed formation and fast !

· Who was this independent / marketing specialist?
· What were the terms of the study, did this include members views?
· The full conclusions of any report provided?
· Costs of the study to the BMC and Others?
· A robust estimate of the cost of the change to our organisation is needed.

Then the issue needs debate If the organisation does not willingly choose to discuss this, then members and clubs will fource the meeting with an EGM. 35 individual members or five Clubs is all it takes to call an EGM.

John Booth ex Man Com SW


103) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
Presumably this is in anticipation of an easy re-branding to Climb England and Climb Cymru when Scotland eventually decides to go independent following Brexit.
26/07/2016
I am really disappointed - partly in the shift to a less inclusive name, but especially at the lack of consultation. The BMC is only the National _Governing_ Body for competition climbing. For the rest of us it is our National _Representative_ Body, and what kind of _Representative_ body changes its name without consulting its members?

'Council' has been disappearing from similar bodies for years, and the word 'British' became an exaggeration in 1970 when the Scots exited, so a name change might have merit (but so might retaining a strong brand). Stating that some climbers don't associate with the word 'mountaineering' may be true, but many hillwalkers, mountaineers and ski-mountaineers don't associate with 'climbing'. How sure are we that there is a net gain to be had, and is a 'net gain' justified in any case if you alienate a big part of your core membership?

The 'everyone climbs' argument is about as justified (and daft) as if 'England Athletics' rebranded as 'England Running' on the grounds that all field sports - even high jump and shot put - involve a bit of running!

The Irish and Scottish Councils have moved to "Mountaineering X" for their name updates (after consulting their members, apparently). When the home nation Mountain Leader Training Boards re-branded, they did it consistently, so why not the Councils? Let's hope that the BMC listens to the massive adverse feedback and has a re-think both about consultation and about the name. If not, this is a sad day indeed.

Please note - I am not anonymous, I am Jonathan White and am positing this in my capacity as an Individual Member of the BMC, a former BMC Management Committee Member and BMC Chair of Training, not in my capacity as a Committee Member of the Alpine Club. Apologies for any duplication if my attempt to post this last night (comment 87) finally appears.
105) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
Very disappointed by this. You're throwing away a name with some history and gravitas behind it, that everyone in the community both in the UK and Europe knows, for something that sounds and looks like a cheap gear shop marketing sign. No doubt this will waste significant proportions of our membership fees too.
106) Zoe McLean
26/07/2016
If you don't agree with the rebranding sign this petition https://www.change.org/p/say-no-to-the-bmc-rebranding perhaps together the BMC will take note of our feelings
27/07/2016
72 year's consistent brand recognition is to be binned with little more than the endorsement of a couple of celebrity quotes. Presented as a fait a complis by a supposedly grass roots organisation which remains in close touch with its user base?
It seems to be a highly political decision, disentangling regional connections (Wales and Scotland)?
Are the BMC being leant on by their funding bodies?
Rebranding exercises in the commercial world are taken on with care and consideration - this seems to take no care or consideration of the participants. Can you present the research basis for this? Does this address a need to boost falling numbers? Is there a lack of awareness of the BMC within the climbing community? I know that the BMC receives additional funding, but members fees are absorbed by this rebranding exercise, so I would suggest consultation of some sort would be a sensible and sensitive course of action.
108) Anonymous User
27/07/2016
I agree with a lot of what has already been said namely and especially the lack of member consultation in the process and the lack of credibility of the association the rebrand will make at home and abroad. The BMC should be doing more to unite mountaineers at home and abroad and this in my opinion will do the opposite. There is a big difference between hill walking and mountaineering.
109) Anonymous User
27/07/2016
I run group sessions and encourage all my participants to join the BMC because it's a great cause. The name change (not so much the fact it is changing it is the lack of engaging the membership whether it was necessary) I am undecided whether to renew my membership. I joined the BMC to protect the rights of people involved in outdoor activities (climbers, walkers, fell runners, skiers, ski mountaineer, alpinists ...everyone who steps foot on moorland, mountains and fells), for conservation purposes, to engage young people, to encourage more women into the sports. Whilst I do see this by happening I am concerned as to how much money was spent on this pointless endeavour when it could have funded more meets, more rubbish collection etc etc. It's the mentality that rebranding will some how engage a larger audience (seriously, who will say " they've got an AMAZING logo, I'll give them money"), it's actively engaging people...schools, clubs and the public. And that's not the mentality of what I understand the BMC to be and it's not really something I want to be involved in.
110) Anonymous User
27/07/2016
'Climb Britain is intended to better reflect the wide remit of the organisation' surely it narrows it to climbing. Not impressed by the name change at least 'Mountaineering Scotland' still sounds like its encompasses everything outdoors. Not sure I'll be renewing my membership.
111) Eddie
27/07/2016
Are all the supportive comments being held back ?
There are still 1oo in moderation, most (60) still from Monday when the news broke.
Could the wait be spreading reaction to spread other media ?

127) Alex wrote:
26/07/2016
" Hi everyone.
Many thanks for all the comments. If you'd like your comment to get published without moderation, please login. We have to moderate each individual anonymous comment, which does take time. "
27/07/2016
I accept that "Mountaineering" may no longer encompass all the aspects of our pastime, but "climb" is even more exclusive. The very fact that you have to justify it to hillwalkers proves the point. In our community, if you describe yourself as a "climber" or say you're going "climbing", that means rock or ice climbing (or its indoor variant). It probably doesn't mean alpine mountaineering without further clarification, and definitely doesn't mean hillwalking. This implies a very narrow focus.

It is suggested this is driven by the need to obtain more funding for competition climbing from the Sports Council, although that is of interest to only a minority of climbers, let alone the wider membership. To throw away a strong and internationally well-recognised brand for this bland codswallop is misguided.

The lack of consultation is also concerning. So far the responses I've seen have been overwhelmingly negative.

If it's trying to appeal to the yoof contingent, you've got it wrong. They don't climb, they send it.

113) Anonymous User
27/07/2016
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
114) Anonymous User
27/07/2016
Whilst I understand the context of re-branding and the need to reinvent yourself to appeal to a larger demographic this shouldn't be done at the expense of annoying thousands of loyal members who have been with the BMC for generations! Looking at posts on UKC & facebook it would appear I'm not alone in thinking that this has been a rushed process. My org took two years over its re-branding and consulted far and wide to ensure everyone got the message. I'm sure there's no rule that says the membership should be consulted, however it might have been a good idea. Personally I think British Climbing would have been a better name, several other orgs have also adopted the 'British' first followed by the sport. Walkers can decide themselves whether or not the org represents them by the actions it take on their behalf to support them. Also I wonder where Nordic Walking sits? Perhaps it's time for walking to have its own representative body. I do like the two peaks however!
115) Anonymous
27/07/2016
This comment broke the house rules and has been removed
116) Anonymous
27/07/2016
This comment broke the house rules and has been removed
117) Anonymous User
27/07/2016
I don't think this can be allowed to happen. You've lost our trust. What will you change next without telling anyone?
118) Anonymous User
27/07/2016
Should be rename the English a Football Team - 'Kick England' ?
119) Anonymous User
27/07/2016
To those saying :
' If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'

Continuous improvement does involve breaking it sometimes to make new room for improvement.
28/07/2016
Oh get over yourselves. These 3 kids are going to walk up Ben Nevis on Saturday, whatever the weather.
They call it climbing. They're only 11. Yes the BMC committees dropped off big time behaving so secretively. They're not perfect . That's what committees do. Most climbers don't enjoy committee work, not even most who are on them. Get off the internet and get out on them hills this weekend, or at least encourage someone who is & not just for themselves.

https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/Old-ben
I
121) Anonymous User
28/07/2016
"103) Anonymous User
26/07/2016
Presumably this is in anticipation of an easy re-branding to Climb England and Climb Cymru when Scotland eventually decides to go independent following Brexit. "

If Scots chose to leave it would still be Climb Britain, even if no longer quite so Great a Britain
122) Anonymous User
28/07/2016
This is a terrible idea. I thought it was a horrible joke at first. Please don't change the name. I've always liked the BMC logo. Climb Britain looks like a one off indoor climbing event. It looks like something I would ignore in a magazine or leaflet. Its not memorable or eye catching. Its bland and tacky.
123) Anonymous User
28/07/2016
Rebranding is just lazy - make work - marketing!
124) Anonymous User
28/07/2016
This is not a good change. Over the past few years the BMC has worked hard to feel inclusive for us hillwalkers and people who love mountains. It felt like an organisation that was working for the mountains and for the people who like to do anything in them. "Climb Britain" says none of this things.

If this is about competition climbing I've seen a similar thing happen in cycling. The BCF (now British cycling) started to be all about elite athletes and the olympics. CTC membership was seen as better representing the thousands of people who wanted an organisation working on their behalf. As a hillwalker maybe I should admit mountaineering is something i aspired to rather than did. I'm closer to a rambler than a climber so maybe I'll be off there.

And don't get me started on the logo...
125) Anonymous User
28/07/2016
Do you have a link to the resources, which the £25,000 Sports Council money bought? Did you get any other work for that other than the name and logo?
126) Anonymous
28/07/2016
This comment broke the house rules and has been removed
127) Anonymous User
28/07/2016
You must have better things to do with your time and MY money
128) Anonymous User
28/07/2016
The brighter red & a bit of blue might actually refresh the existing motif but beyond that buying it in & dropping on the members has turned out to be the wrong approach to get buy in.
129) Anonymous
28/07/2016
This comment broke the house rules and has been removed
130) Andy Say
28/07/2016
The very first line turns me off immediately: 'After more than 70 years trading as the British Mountaineering Council....'. NO We were the British Mountaineering Council; not simply a 'trading' organisation.

And if 'the Mountaineering Council of Scotland – has announced its intention to rebrand as Mountaineering Scotland' whilst in Ireland we have 'Mountaineering Ireland' what total pillock has rejected 'Mountaineering Britain' as a harmonised name?
131) John Booth
28/07/2016
The BMC's strength has always been its grassroots member’s willingness to volunteer time and energy, to discuss and act under one banner. The recent top down, approach observed this week is so far removed from the BMC's normal way of working that I kept thinking that some common sense would break out soon.

It’s taken a few days but it has, and the re-brand is open for debate.

As members we are more than stakeholders, through the memorandum and articles of association we own the Company. It’s our organisation, it’s our volunteer time and fundamentally it’s our mountaineering that is represented. We have the right to hold this rebrand up for critical debate, to express our reservations and ultimately consent to it, alter it, or reject it.

I do belive that ‘Climb Britain’ is a stunningly poor choice of name; it might well be a good strategy to achieve many goals, but it’s not a brand. It’s too explicit and it's too divisive.

Climb Britain misses the mark on several key points:

a) Ski mountaineering is completely off the radar. The BMC has a mandate to represent this group

b) Landowners meeting a representative of 'Climb Britain” will be feeling far more argumentative than one who is meeting the British Mountaineering Council. We need the landowners and the volunteers who work with them.

c) Focusing on ‘what we do’ in ‘Climb Britain’ is confusing to entities that are not ‘climbing clubs’, particularly the University Sports Unions & Hillwalkers.

d) The BMC fees are a sizeable element of club subscriptions, a confused brand does not help when justifying the fees.

The option of Membership resignations and Club walkouts have been threatened by many. If you hear of any member seeking this path, please point them to the Area Meetings. We the BMC are weaker without them; no rebrand is worth the loss of members, especially one which is to be enacted in the name of increasing the membership! Too much public money has been wasted on the rebrand already, and Officer time is and always will be in short supply. Although the EGM is easy to initiate it would impact on current projects in the BMC office. It great to see the BMC take the area meeting approach.

My suggestion is that the meetings comprise of:

An open forum where the principal advantages of a rebranded organisation are debated and defined.

Alternatives to both structure and name of the BMC are explored, which meet points agreed above.

That the Area Representatives take forward the views of the members expressed in the open forum to National Committee.

That the Executive take forward the value of the BMC name, the strength of the brand and the 72 years of history. Any final changes must be agreed at a formal vote, open to the Membership.

132) Andy Say
28/07/2016
After having read all of the comments above I would have to say that, in the opinion of the actual membership of the British Mountaineering Council, it would appear that this decision taken by NatCo without consultation with area meetings just sucks.
133) Anonymous
28/07/2016
This comment broke the house rules and has been removed
134) Anonymous User
28/07/2016
Shame on you BMC you have turned our organisation from inclusive to exclusive. I for one will not be renewing my membership
135) Anonymous User
28/07/2016
Climb Cymru. Better than Dringo Wales I suppose.
More seriously were members asked?
136) Andy Say
29/07/2016
Does anyone else think that the new logo represents a broken mountain?
137) Anonymous User
29/07/2016
Geez. Going by this thread shouldn't it be Whinge Britain ?
138) Anonymous User
29/07/2016
136) Andy Say wrote:
29/07/2016
"Does anyone else think that the new logo represents a broken mountain? "

Not at all. The two in the front are a couple of A-frames bending in the wind like Vango Force Tens.
139) Anonymous User
29/07/2016
As trivial as it may seem, the acronym of an organisation (rather than it's full name) can be instantly recognisable and define it's reputation and how it's perceived e.g. SAS/NATO, AMI/...BMC. Climb Britain does, in my opinion, sound more like a challenge event organiser or a national climbing wall franchise (and CB is ironically the initials of it's most famous patron, surely not a factor in it's choice).

However, I'm certain a simple name swap will not be enough to change the culture of such an important resource to the British mountaineering community.
29/07/2016
Given the reaction over the last few days, the response from Dave Turnbull late yesterday is spot on. It recognises that although the move was done in good faith, the reaction is not what was expected, so the debate that many of us have asked for will now take place and the National Council will respond.

What we need to do is to get out from behind our computers and get to our nearest area meeting (like real outdoor folk, in the same way that we do if someone tries to bolt your local crag). We need to: a) let our representatives know if we value the BMC name and brand and if so, how much, b) what we think about 'ClimbBritain', and c) what other methods the BMC could use to reach those climbers, hillwalkers, and mountaineers (including ski-mountaineers) that are currently either unaware of the BMC or don't think that it is relevant to them.

I don't like the approach that the BMC has taken, but I appreciate the motives, and that they've recognised the adverse reaction and changed tack. Collectively we can find something that works for our national representative body, and all the people that it should represent.

If you haven't seen it, check out Dave's posting elsewhere on the BMC website which starts:
It's been a rocky ride this last few days, and it's probably fair to say we didn’t quite anticipate the level of interest there would be in our Climb Britain announcement. But, since then, we have been listening very carefully and this is what we’re proposing to do:
141) Anonymous User
31/07/2016
Divided Britain

Lost - BMC
Found - Climb Britain

Why not McHaffie McFaff-Face...?
142) Anonymous User
31/07/2016
... searching to integrate rather than differentiate but can't find a way to summit...
143) Anonymous User
31/07/2016
I'm only posting this as anonymous because the BMC website NEVER recognizes my email address or password" So I can't login.!

When I heard about the name change and the 9 month consultation and the two agencies involved, "b-focused" and "thinkfarm" i thought it was a scam. But now I see it's not and the CEO must stand up and be counted.

He is supposed to be a leader and to allow such a waste of time and members money to be spent in this way casts doubt on his ability to lead anything.

The very name is wrong, it indicates that our activities are limited to climbing in Britain.

When will be told how much this cost?

I see from the many earlier comments that there is general outrage at this name change so perhaps the two agencies involved might like to admit their incompetence and hand the money back, their service was not fit for purpose.

Please, please, can we now elect a competent CEO and can we please get our money back and can we please, please put a stop to this stupid name change.

And finally, can we get the website to function properly.

Richard Stain





01/08/2016
I’ve been following this set of comments since the announcement and now the comment from Dave Turnbull. The general feeling of the member comment appears to be: The new name

1. is not liked by members
2. is not inclusive of all the activities undertaken by the present membership
3. has been imposed without consultation
4. the logo is ghastly

Personally I agree with this. As an alpine ski tourer who wanders around uk hills occasionally I don’t appear to fit anywhere in the new vision as expressed by the name/logo.

I’ve read Dave Turnbull’s update. Did he really think enforcing such a radical change without consultation was not going to lead to a grass roots membership reaction? The offer of post event consultation is a welcome step but comments in his update worry me as to whether it is not just a token.

Firstly he wants the consultation over in time for the results to be available for discussion at a meeting on the 17 September. To be properly considered responses will need to be correlated and summarised into concise useable reports distributed to those attending prior to the meeting for them to consider. So area events need to be organised, notified and completed by, say, first week in September. We are now in August. A month when many people will be away and anyone who has to organise anything knows it becomes a more complicated and a prolonged process. If he and the President are to attend all these meeting they had better cancel any holiday plans. Please, if you really want a proper consultation of members and the avoidance of accusations of tokenism this date needs to be moved back to at least October.

Secondly, the three groups mentioned as being consulted are members, clubs and the GB Climbing Team. When did this small group of elite athletes carry such sway over what is fundamentally a grass root organisation of members and affiliated clubs. In another post (131) John Booth says it is the members who OWN the BMC. If this is correct, whilst others may have opinions, it is for the members/owners to decide on this point, not specialist interest groups.

This list of groups is not definitive. Which other specialist interest groups are you intending to consult? Sport England? Will you make their opinions available to the membership prior to the area meetings? If they have opinions to sway us we should be told.

Mr Turnbull says he is listening. The response is negative, but you are to keep the rebrand. So listening, not acting on what you hear and setting up a consultation which is flawed. The “We” may be firmly behind the rebrand, but so far the membership don’t appear to be. Lets see if that is the case following a proper consultation of members.
145) Anonymous User
01/08/2016
Sounds like a lot of money has been spent unnecessarily rebranding a well established organisation. The new identity appears to make it look more like an 'event' rather than a well respected organisation. Climb Britain makes a good title for an advertising campaign to encourage young people to take up the challenge to climb peaks, hills, boulders, mountains, whatever. Sorry, but I think b-focussed and Thinkfarm have got it wrong. Were any of the UK's climbing clubs asked about the new identity before it was implemented.
146) Anonymous User
02/08/2016
Well, 145 comments so far, 2 in favour and 2 ambiguous in their response. Everyone else seems to agree with me, poor decision, taken in a poor way and announced poorly. In fact, the whole thing makes me feel a bit poorly. I only found out last night when the guy behind the counter in my local wall informed me about it in a derisory manner.
Shame on you 'CB/BMC'
147) Anonymous User
02/08/2016
I agree with most of the comments on here. I can't believe this name is considered superior, the logo is awful, and the lack of consultation deplorable.

Some of the original article like saying that after 9 months the agengies came up with the solution is laughable. It just copies the current trendy verb-noun combination, and the standard red, white, blue colours in use by most british organisations. It took 9 months to come up with that? If the executive were impressed with this bit of work then I truely fear for the future of the BMC.

The original article also says 'the name ‘Mountaineering Council’ doesn’t quite cut it these days.' Having been involved in a quite a bit of change management over the years, it is well known that if you are going to impose change you need to start by making the case that a change is necessary. If it is true that the name 'mountaineering council' doesn't cut it anymore then judging by all the comments on here, UKC and facebook the executive seem to have been the only ones to have thought it to be the case!

As a long term club and personal member, certainly I had never picked up a feeling that there was a problem with the name. I can see the arguement that a 'council' sounds a bit dated, but is it a problem? Is it putting people off engaging in mountain activities? Is it putting people off joining the BMC? Even now I haven't seen a convincing reason for the need for change explained.

The idea of using this as a brand name for marketing sports climbing and competition seems very sensible.

The whole thing has clearly been very poorly handled. The credibility of the people running this great organisation will take a long time to recover from this if it ever does.
02/08/2016
Here’s why I think its wrong…

“Climb Britain sounds superficial. It feels like a lesser, shrunken organisation than the British Mountaineering Council, a name with a legacy, gravitas and status. It fails to represent the depth of relationship many BMC members have with the mountains. It smacks of ‘brand new customers only’ and alienates the natives. The proposed name (& logo) is unstimulating, watered down and unrepresentative of the passionate adventuresome people who make up the BMC members. Yes, member do all ‘climb’ but so do road bikers - and runner beans.” I’ve worked for many years in marketing this would have been my feedback to any agency presenting Climb Britain to me (perhaps slightly more diplomatically). I’d have told them to come back when they has a deeper, ‘real-er’, grasp of the organisation and its members.

What this agency have failed to understand is what members really have in common. In my opinion it is less about an ‘activity’ and more about a shared love of the mountains and the outdoors, a sense of adventure and freedom. In other words it is largely irrelevant what they are doing in the mountains - walking, climbing, running, skiing, or indeed biking, what they have in common is the desire to be there. I think the reason Climb Britain has had a less than favourable reception is because it misses the point. People who are often non-conformist, who don’t want to be labelled or told what to do, were never going to be happy being told they were part of what does indeed sound like a sponsored event! The logo is sterile and characterless and serves only to reinforce the whole sanitisation process.

The BMC may well have needed to reposition themselves but making your brand current doesn’t necessarily mean changing it. There has been much chatter on the current use of ‘mountaineering’ in BMC so an example from elsewhere…The AA stands for Automobile Association but I’ve never heard a van owner say ‘I can’t use The AA as I don’t have a car.’ And nowadays who uses the word 'automobile’ ! But The AA made themselves current as ‘the 4th emergency service’. And, they built on their existing customer loyalty and retained all the heritage their brand represented. The CTC’s rebrand to Cycling UK has also come up. They represent a single pursuit – cycling so Cycling UK works, Climb Britain does not.

What strategies, other than rebranding, were explored by the BMC? Though I don’t think it was their intent, it does look like the BMC are now serving Sports England and its associated targets to the detriment of non-bonus attracting, old fashioned long standing members - who are ironically now feeling Climb Britain is not relevant to them.

I think asking the question ‘What do we need to do to stay relevant/current?’ is necessary to ensure a long term strategy; and I don’t object to money being spent on this. But I don’t think this name represents the raison d’etre of the BMC any better than it represents the members.


02/08/2016
Here’s why I think its wrong…

“Climb Britain sounds superficial. It feels like a lesser, shrunken organisation than the British Mountaineering Council, a name with a legacy, gravitas and status. It fails to represent the depth of relationship many BMC members have with the mountains. It smacks of ‘brand new customers only’ and alienates the natives. The proposed name (& logo) is unstimulating, watered down and unrepresentative of the passionate adventuresome people who make up the BMC members. Yes, member do all ‘climb’ but so do road bikers - and runner beans.” I’ve worked for many years in marketing this would have been my feedback to any agency presenting Climb Britain to me (perhaps slightly more diplomatically). I’d have told them to come back when they has a deeper, ‘real-er’, grasp of the organisation and its members.

What this agency have failed to understand is what members really have in common. In my opinion it is less about an ‘activity’ and more about a shared love of the mountains and the outdoors, a sense of adventure and freedom. In other words it is largely irrelevant what they are doing in the mountains - walking, climbing, running, skiing, or indeed biking, what they have in common is the desire to be there. I think the reason Climb Britain has had a less than favourable reception is because it misses the point. People who are often non-conformist, who don’t want to be labelled or told what to do, were never going to be happy being told they were part of what does indeed sound like a sponsored event! The logo is sterile and characterless and serves only to reinforce the whole sanitisation process.

The BMC may well have needed to reposition themselves but making your brand current doesn’t necessarily mean changing it. There has been much chatter on the current use of ‘mountaineering’ in BMC so an example from elsewhere…The AA stands for Automobile Association but I’ve never heard a van owner say ‘I can’t use The AA as I don’t have a car.’ And nowadays who uses the word 'automobile’ ! But The AA made themselves current as ‘the 4th emergency service’. And, they built on their existing customer loyalty and retained all the heritage their brand represented. The CTC’s rebrand to Cycling UK has also come up. They represent a single pursuit – cycling so Cycling UK works, Climb Britain does not.

What strategies, other than rebranding, were explored by the BMC? Though I don’t think it was their intent, it does look like the BMC are now serving Sports England and its associated targets to the detriment of non-bonus attracting, old fashioned long standing members - who are ironically now feeling Climb Britain is not relevant to them.

I think asking the question ‘What do we need to do to stay relevant/current?’ is necessary to ensure a long term strategy; and I don’t object to money being spent on this. But I don’t think this name represents the raison d’etre of the BMC any better than it represents the members.


150) Anonymous User
02/08/2016
The BMC is a strong name for an excellent organisation with respect, i am not sure the new name represents us well.

Please keep the BMC name
151) Anonymous
02/08/2016
This comment broke the house rules and has been removed
152) Anonymous User
03/08/2016
I won't be renewing my membership. Simple.
153) Anonymous User
03/08/2016
I'm 23 and a recent member of the BMC - I joined because it is a prestigious organisation who work to protect and maintain access to places I love, and at least it is some consolation to know that this will continue. However, it does sadden me that people believe that things need to be dumbed down to engage the younger generation in a way that suggests we are have no interest in the past.

My interest in mountains, walking and climbing, was gained through scouting. I'm currently a leader and at the moment scouting has never been more popular, but when I joined 13 years ago it was seen as quite uncool, numbers were down and it seemed a bit niche. However, not once did they consider a name change - brand trust is something most organisations clamour for, it means they appeal simply on the prestige and heritage of their name and it takes ages to build. Scouting continued to be known as Scouts or the Scout Association, it modernised for the centenary celebrations in 2007 and built upon it's 100 year legacy, it got Bear Grylls on board, updated websites, campaigns, fonts etc, promoted the idea that scouting gave an unrivalled chance for adventure, gave younger members a greater say within the organisation...and now it is going from strength to strength.

I'm all for engaging the young generation, but please don't do it at the expense of 70 odd years of heritage. Climb Britain will work as a fantastic campaign within the BMC (much like 'Mend Our Mountains'), but please don't see the British Mountaineering Council as no longer relevant. Organisations have peaks and troughs, much like the Scout Association, but we didn't give that up and become Camp Britain.
154) Anonymous
04/08/2016
This comment broke the house rules and has been removed
155) Anonymous User
05/08/2016
I will not feel represented by anything just called Climb. I am a long distance hiker, mountaineer, ski mountaineer and a mountain leader but I do not climb.
156) Andy Say
05/08/2016
Wow. Could I just say that as someone who has regularly seen tumbleweed drifting across my screen as I try to find out if there is interest on the BMC website to some fairly chunky things I am amazed at the number of passionate comments here.

But... maybe not.

And could I be the first to point out that the tagline -' climb hills, climb rocks, climb indoors, climb ice, climb mountains' is pretty damn dumb as well. Hills have rocks on them? the difference between hills and mountains is?, Indoors is a pretty abstract concept unlike 'rocks' and 'mountains'? And most hills and mountains I have been on have ice sometimes?

I am overjoyed that I should be back from Italy in time for the some of the meetings. See you there, Dave :-)

157) Anonymous User
06/08/2016
1) Fact :
Article 3.2 of the Articles of Association (amended as recently as 2014) states that the BMC is “the representative body …. for Climbing, Mountaineering, (which shall include ski-mountaineering) and Hillwalking (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘Mountaineering’)”.
In other words, the word ‘Mountaineering’ is the one descriptor to be used in the Articles to encompass all activities that the BMC represents.
Opinion :
- If the word “Mountaineering” (rather than “Climbing”) is defined in the Articles of Association to be the one word which embraces all relevant activities, then should not that same word be used in the name of the organisation rather than “Climb” ? If not, then the Articles of Association should be changed.

2) Fact :
Article 3.10 states that an object of the BMC is “To oversee, organise and control climbing competitions within the UK”.
In other words the BMC is not just the representative body of competition climbing but is also its organising body. The BMC is the representative body of all-embracing ‘Mountaineering’ but is also the governing body of a sub-category of ‘Mountaineering’ :
Opinion :
- Appropriately, the BMC is keen to raise the profile of competition climbing and sees the Olympic acceptance of the sport as a means of so doing. Re-branding fits in well with the idea of raising funds, raising public interest, flogging T-shirts saying “Climb Britain” … in fact all of the razamataz that goes with many sports, but which does not sit comfortably alongside the ethos of the other categories of ‘Mountaineering’. The BMC has become dazzled by this opportunity for (self ?) publicity and has decided to re-brand solely for the advantage of competition climbing. It has allowed the tail to wag the dog.
- I see no announcement from the Austrian, French or Swiss representative bodies (OeAV, CAF/FFCAM, SAC) that they feel that their name “does not quite cut it these days” and hence need to re-brand. They seem able to accommodate competition climbing within their existing brand names. Why is the BMC unable to do this?
- If the BMC cannot do so, then perhaps competition climbing should be both represented and governed by a separate body from the BMC.

Mike Esten
Happy to be a member of the AC, CC & ULGMC
Unhappy to be represented by “Climb Britain”
158) Anonymous User
07/08/2016
Yet another example on new speak. I hate it.
159) Anonymous User
08/08/2016
“We trained hard—but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we were reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while actually producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.”
160) Anonymous User
09/08/2016
Don't change the name. The BMC is a well known and well liked brand. Save the re branding money and spend it on the core values that the BMC was built on.

Put a vote to the members and I bet most will not want it changed.
161) Anonymous User
09/08/2016
Why has there been no consultation with members? I only joined the BMC 6 months ago, and the values and traditions of the current brand are what attracted me. Also 'Mountaineering' is so much more evocative and powerful than 'climb', and describes what most of us do in the hills far better.
This doesn't feel like a good use of members' subs, and really makes me question how the organisation is run. Please reconsider.
162) Anonymous User
09/08/2016
The rebranding of the BMC to Climb might well prove to be toxic. A brand name is a corporate name or product we can all identify with. “Climb” to me does not include walkers, of which over 50% of the BMC membership are. One of the BMC’s own surveys states that 62% of our membership listed hill walking as their main activity…..maybe you should re-brand as Walk Britain! Why on earth you’d want to lump us all under a Climb banner is beyond me. By all means re-brand, and refresh but at least choose something sensible, like Mountaineering England or whatever. This has obviously caused a stir judging by the amount of posts on your websites and other sites such as UK Climbing – mostly objecting. If you don’t listen to the membership (and it doesn’t even appear to have even been considered at local area BMC level either) maybe the walkers and mountaineers amongst us will vote with our feet and go elsewhere. Unless someone can give me a good reason not to, I will be lobbying my club to re-consider our “BMC” membership, which has often been debated over the years!
163) Anonymous User
09/08/2016
I am sad about this unnecessary change. I think something dignified and serious that clearly resonates with so many members will be lost in favour of shallow gimmickry.. It is important the BMC stays up to date and is prepared to modernise but this won't do it. Please think again about what it is you are trying to achieve and find another way. As George Bernard Shaw famously said 'Progress is impossible without change but those who cannot change their minds, cannot change anything. ' It's not too late.
164) Anonymous User
10/08/2016
The mountains in Britain (hills really on a global scale) have existed for about 350 million years. They won't care but it does seem like an irrelevant waste of money.
165) Anonymous
15/08/2016
This comment broke the house rules and has been removed
166) Anonymous User
16/08/2016
I have been wondering for a while why I continue to pay a subscription to the BMC when I get so little for it. The proposed name change makes it clear to me that this organisation is not for me. I am a walker and scrambler, not a climber. I will continue with the Austrian Alpine Club for their excellent free insurance, local activities and magazine, and with The Ramblers for their work on access and local activities. However the BMC clearly has no future relevance to me.
167) John N
16/08/2016
Shouldn't this be put to the vote ? as i am sure i am not the only one who does not want to change the name ive been a proud member for over two decades and never got a say in this ??
168) Simon Lee
23/08/2016
As an alternative would "The British Climbing Organisation" have the gravitis that a lot of complainants have an issue with re Climb Britain but still have the inclusiveness that covers the breadth of the BMC's representation ?

Simon Lee
169) Simon Lee
24/08/2016
Scrap the above. I am warming to "British Mountaineering and Climbing" AKA BMC

:-)
170) Anonymous
25/08/2016
This comment broke the house rules and has been removed
171) Anonymous User
26/08/2016
I am not in favour
Rebranding is expensive and unnecessary and will benefit members not one jot
Money could be better spent
Effort better directed
This rebranding excercise does not seem to have a democratic accountability to members
172) Paul Cox
30/08/2016
I'm a climber, a walker, a mountaineer and I've been a member of the BMC for more years than I can remember. I joined the BMC because it made sense, it represented my views and interests and it supported my participation through local clubs, insurance and reciprocal arrangements. Very simple.

I didn't join because I liked the logo or thought the name was cool. I never would and I think it is vastly underestimating and patronising to future members to imagine that those are reasons people would join.

People will continue to join the BMC if it continues to help them and support them in their pastimes, not because of some short sighted marketing nonsense. "Climb Britain" says to me climb in Britain - a tiny fraction of what the BMC is and does. The BMC is so much more than that.

Don't fall for the marketing hyperbole.
173) Anonymous User
01/09/2016
I have no particular attachment to the old BMC logo and recognise that in these days of Twitter, Facebook etc, the full 'British Mountaineering Council' title doesn't really do the organisation any favours - it certainly doesn't encourage hill walkers to join as few of them, unless they walk in winter, see themselves as 'mountaineers'. 'The Ramblers' (which used to be The Ramblers Association until quite recently) is OK for people who only walk in the rolling countryside, rarely straying above 1000 ft but people climbing Gable, Snowdon & the Ben ought to be joining our organisation rather than 'The Ramblers', yet how many do?
Shortening it to BMC means people are as likely to come across cycle racing, an IT company and running groups if they google it!
So I can see why the Executive thought it was maybe time to become more modern in their branding, particularly if it will gain more members than it will lose. Personally I don't see why both the traditional and new logos can't be used together, as they are currently being on many of the webpages, especially as the legal name is still being retained as the BMC.
Both logos & names seem to be often used in monochrome white format but I think the Climb one looks good in colour, although I would prefer the jagged peaks symbol to contain the Union Jack rather than red white & blue stripes so as to incontrovertibly represent Britain rather than France or the Netherlands.
John Edwards BMC Midlands
174) Anonymous User
14/09/2016
Personally i feel ive lost something when i really think about it its respect for the British Mountaineering Council i felt i belong to a world wide respected organisation,
one that reflected britains history of all the sporting game of mountaineering the tragedies and tribulation of past events as well as good foundation for future forward thinking for all included mountain activites and the related connections , I dont like the logo for all the Aspects of the British Mountaineering Council it would be okay as an award for the younger members to aim for if this is to encourage young people to join but iI feel the stalwart members should also be considered , but thats me but im not commenting on here for me , but for the majority of our membership that have the same or similar feelings to those discribed above we have 34 members in the Bassetlaw hill and mountain club we have been members since we started 16 years ago this is now under review the general feeling is we look elsewhere for our clubs needs , we have younger members that dont like the name change also , i only hope that all these new members thats is supposedly coming will outweigh the drain of existing members .when quoting statistics of members under 25 a catchment of seven years being 10,628 then compared with the remainder it would be nice to know what age grouping of seven years has the most members , not all young people want to belong to clubs ,
its only if something is done for them that gives them interest to join , after all they are feeling their feet in life and have other priorities all going on at the same time we have all been there, the BMC should at least listen to the majority of its membership
an upset founder member and chairman
of the BHMC
Michael Kent
175) Anonymous User
14/09/2016
sounds like an ADvertising campaign! BMC climb Britain, climb England, climb Wales, climb Scotlan etc has so much more fund raising potential as it feel more local to any possible sponsors.
176) Anonymous User
14/09/2016
We have been members for many years. We climb but also walk,ski and so on. We probably make the money back in hut and gear and other discounts over a year. But the real reason we are members is to support an organisation which represents those of us who go into the mountains. With increasing obesity and sedentary lifestyles, outdoor recreation needs defending. The new name has no authority - and with the increasing problems with mountain rescue, planning, law, national park resources, we need an organisation with clout and integrity. Finally - why were members not consulted? The BMC obviously works so hard to be inclusive and encourage all types of people into the hills - which is one of the key reasons we are members. So why not listen to its membership? Please do not change the name.
177) Anonymous User
21/09/2016
Did the BMC National Council meeting take place as scheduled on 17th Sept? I'm interested to read the meeting minutes and area reports, especially as related to feedback on the branding 'proposal'.

As I and many others have said on this and other threads, as a slogan for an event, or as a campaign message, Climb ****** has some limited value. As a trading name, or as a brand, or as an organisations core name it lacks in so many ways.

The British Mountaineering Council is who we are, and who we should remain.

Thanks
Paul Seabrook
17/04/2017

<a href="http://www.facebook.com/"Facebook</a>

RELATED ARTICLES

How to get Summit magazine
8

Summit magazine is mailed direct to all BMC individual members four times a year. Club members get one printed copy in March. And now all members - that's both Individual & Club members - can freely download every issue via iTunes or Play with a valid BMC membership number.
Read more »

What does Climb Britain mean for walkers?
16

Britain’s mountains have probably never been climbed by so many people. And the vast majority of those people are walkers. Here’s why the BMC’s new name applies to them too.
Read more »

Climb Britain: the facts
31

Since we announced the start of our journey to Climb Britain, we’ve had some great responses on UKclimbing, Twitter and Facebook. Some positive, some negative – and all passionate.
Read more »

BMC MEMBERSHIP
Join 82,000 BMC members and support British climbing, walking and mountaineering. Membership only £15.72.
Read more »
BMC SHOP
Great range of guidebooks, DVDs, books, calendars and maps.
All with discounts for members.
Read more »
TRAVEL INSURANCE
Get covered with BMC Insurance. Our five policies take you from the beach to Everest.
Read more »