The name change was agreed by BMC National Council on 18 June and is the culmination of a nine month Sports Council funded consultancy project the main conclusion of which was that ‘Mountaineering Council’ doesn’t really cut it these days and that if we want to modernise and connect with new people coming into climbing and hill walking we need to reposition ourselves. Following research they also concluded that the one word that binds all BMC members together is ‘Climb’ i.e. in their words – ‘we all climb stuff’ – be it hills, mountains, rocks, ice or indoor walls. The change comes at a time when the Mountaineering Council of Scotland has also announced its intention to change name to Mountaineering Scotland.
Whilst some changes will be immediately visible the full roll-out of Climb Britain (and our counterpart in Wales – Climb Cymru) will be a gradual process which will take up to 12 months in total.
Rehan and I would like to take this opportunity stress that the name change will most definitely not mean a change in core values of the organisation. The BMC’s core values and essential work programmes (access, environment, conservation, clubs, insurance, safety, heritage, international and others) will be seamlessly transferred to the new-look organisation and in most respects it will very much be a case of business-as-usual. Climb Britain will become the BMC’s registered trading name but our formal legal name (Companies House, Mem & Arts etc) will remain as British Mountaineering Council, so our original title will not be lost forever.
As well as continuing to serve existing climbers and walkers, the hope is that Climb Britain will chime with new and younger people who at present simply don’t see the ‘British Mountaineering Council’ as being relevant to them. Ultimately the more members we have, the stronger we become, and the stronger we become the better placed we will be to serve the needs of this very broad church of ours.
Interesting times, best regards
Dave Turnbull & Rehan Siddiqui
Chief Executive & President
anyone else feel this is a bit wrong, and badly executed. My ten year old could have done a better job of the logo and I don’t have a ten year old. In my opinion, the BMC had the relevant gravitas, and I’m not so sure about the new choice. Maybe I’m just getting old, but judging by various forums, I’m not the only one who feels the same way.
I understand that re-branding is needed from time to time. In this case I am unsure of the motivation, execution and processes followed in getting there. I was unaware of any consultation with the membership. Was the Clubs’ Committee aware / consulted? And noting that a large amount of effort has gone into attracting hill walkers into the BMC over recent years the new name seems curiously inappropriate. Presumably a drive from the Sports Council to attract new people into the sport was behind this change. However, whatever Dave says I think the new brand is too closely directed towards indoor climbing. No, Dave, not all members do “Climb stuff”. Many just walk on hills. I have heard many friends saying that if they had the choice they would resign!
It’s obviously stirred up a lot of comment on UKC, FB, and even here on the CC website. Remember, the CC was one of the founding clubs behind the creation of the BMC. That heightened level of interest in itself might be considered to be a good thing as awareness of the BMC [sic], beyond those already either involved in or on the fringes of BMC activities, can be quite low.
One recurring comment has been about the word “climb” excluding walkers etc. I personally don’t subscribe to that criticism. Hill walkers invariably refer to days out climbing Scafell or some such objective. We even use this verb for tasks like “climbing the stairs”. The fact that “we all climb stuff” is, in my view, a unifying phrase for all the facets of our passions: bouldering; buildering; rock, ice, plastic climbing; mountaineering; hill walking; etc. We do indeed all climb stuff!
Thinking about the credibility of the name BMC (British Mountaineering Council)…
So maybe something more direct, and possibly modern, is easier to align to – especially for people newly exposed to the organisation.
Lastly, many people have asked if the renaming should have been agreed by the whole membership. Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t know. And I don’t know if it matters so long as the organisation retains its values and sticks to upholding its core aims supporting and representing us all. Surely that’s what matters? The name isn’t what the BMC does, and it is only what it actually does that should matter…
Well I’ve cancelled my individual upgrade membership over this. I’m not necessarily against the name change – I agree rebranding can be necessary. However the way this has been implemented is disgusting.
To be fair, “climb stuff” was a direct quote from the BMC, not mine or Pete’s dumbing down. At least when it had Mountaineering in the title, it was easier to convince people it was worth being part of the BMC, via membership of The Climbers’ Club which “was founded in 1898 and is a national club whose objectives are to encourage mountaineering and rock-climbing, and to promote the general interests of mountaineers and the mountain environment” Harder now to do that. It is certainly true that it has not been universally accepted as yet, but, as Pete points out, the proof will out. Seems to be mounting pressure to try and get the BMC to backtrack.
The trouble with the word “Climb” is it is too broad – it could include climbing stairs, ladders, trees, even climbing into bed.
While “Mountaineering” isn’t perfect it is more specific, and it is also aspirational – I was introduced to rock climbing when I was 15 and it was the thought of climbing mountains that inspired me.
It seems to me that the BMC are trying to fix something that isn’t broke.
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 the BMC to claim that they include this group the BMC is dumbing down and disenfranchising the people who do real climbing, hill walking and mountaineering.
There is a lot of negative flack flying around, not just the CC and UKC. It is not making the ex BMC an easy sell to club membership. A bit more prior consultation with the membership and would have saved a lot of antagonism.
Peter Sterling, Thanks for your reply, which is a good deal more considerate than that of other national council reps. Several, including my own rep, have been dismissive and flippant.
But, if you really are persuaded that some kind of re-brand was necessary, then I feel you missed a trick here.
Given that you don’t feel that the name is important;
“The name isn’t what the BMC does, and it is only what it actually does that should matter…”
Then surely decision to re-brand (or not) was an ideal opportunity to reengage members in the mechanisms of democracy, afterall if the name isn’t important it would matter not if we end up with Climby McClimbface, Climb Britain, or the good old British Mountaineering Council.
The area consultation could have fed back to a working group, with a grand finale vote at the AGM. All of which would have renewed interest in national issues at area meetings, and also attendance at AGM.
It is incumbent on those (including you) who want the re-brand to bring the membership with them, not force it on them.
Based on social media feedback and chatter at the crag, I think overwhelmingly the membership are angry, not just about the name and logo, but also about the lack of due process.
When I was a national council (and exec) member, I found that there was indeed very little interest in national issues at area meeting, perhaps just from a couple of attendees. However, this was no excuse to not keep people informed, and I put every effort (it wasn’t much effort to be honest) into making sure that national issues were pre-notified via the agenda. As often as not, nobody was interested, but at least that way, no members could in future claim that they were not consulted. If you never notify, then area meetings end up in a vicious circle, with those who are interested in national issue never attending, because the meetings are not consequential.
I think the only way now to restore the confidence of the membership is for the BMC to now commit to a vote on the re-brand at AGM. It seems there is quite a movement of members who want that and it would be rather embarrassing for the BMC to find itself forced into direct democracy.
Thanks Lyndon. You will have seen that there is a constructive plan (link below) for consultation now underway with Area, NC, Exec, and (who knows for sure until these stages have been gone through) even AGM elements all in place. So I hope you will agree that this regretfully poor launch is being addressed by the BMC bosses (whom I am not one of by the way 😉 ).
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/september-area-meetings-consultation-on-rebranding
One point of clarification though: My own view is neither for nor against the re-branding per se. Hence my comments about it being about what the BMC does, not what it is called. However, re-branding may well be a key tool to enable the BMC to drive greater engagement etc. and therefore have more ability to do more good stuff for outdoorsy folk like us…
Can’t help feeling that the whole re-branding exercise has been very badly managed and now possibly be implemented back to front, after the stable door etc…
As a member of 3 BMC affiliated clubs, nothing about this filtered down to us about what the BMC proposed, so obviously no consultation was forthcoming, until all the recent fuss on UKC, FB the BMC’s own website etc. Indeed it was a couple od days after the initial announcement that Dave Turnbull’s ‘Consultation’ paragraph was posted in the media. All this should have been initially presented as a proposal for discussion at Area meetings, and followed as others have suggested by vote at the AGM. Why all the haste for such a major decision by an Executive Committee that is supposedly representative of all affiliative clubs and Associate Members? And I should add funded by member’s contributions. Members are perfectly entitled to both consultation and a voice on this issue. All this talk of the Olympics, Youth sensitivities etc is codswallop!
If all this consultation had been done in the first place, I’m sure that there would not have been such a hostile reaction to these proposals, with the opportunity for the BMC to explain why they felt the urgent need for this rebranding. They would then be in a better informed position on members views and move forward constructively.
We live in interesting times…