# Name change for London Cycling Campaign



## ian_oli (23 Mar 2011)

The dreaded branding consultants have struck and there are proposals to change its name to London Cyclists.

Frankly I am not that bothered about a new name per se, though I joined LCC for three things only, it campaigning (of which it seems to do less and less) its insurance and its discount card. 

What I do object to is that so far there has been as far as I can see no publicity about this or attempt to involve the membership - its only because I subscribe to a particular Yahoo group I have heard about this. It's not announced on the website and I don't recall a whisper in the last magazine.

I suppose this a hazard now that LCC is a charity. Its management and trustees can more or less do what they want regardless of the membership.

I am afraid that this is a sign the the LCC is disappearing up its own fundament, just like has happened to CTC and it will move LCC further from its original purpose which was to campaign on behalf of cyclists in London


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Mar 2011)

there is some considerable angst within the active parts of the LCC about this - I get the borough yahoo group e-mails, and nobody seems quite sure what it's about.

Surely it's a writing on the tin thing. Right now the LCC is primarily a campaigning organisation. If the name changes, how will the LCC change?


----------



## her_welshness (23 Mar 2011)

As the Lewisham branch we have been contacted to provide feedback for this branding. I think they plan to change the logo too. I know I should not be saying this, but I cannot be arsed, ultimately the name says what we do. We are a cycling organisation, in London and we campaign.

A few months ago we got told that we had to fill in various statistics which ran over several spread sheets for our borough. We did not get asked to do this, but told. As a Coordinator who volunteers my time, it p*ssed me off that we were given no advance warning and that we had a period of a few weeks to fill it in. Probably this was at the instigation of the new CE, as is probably the rebrand. We also get a pittance of a grant from LCC, the Skyride grant is roughly the same amount and thats just one event in the year! 

Mutter mutter, grumble grumble.


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Mar 2011)

here's the letter from the new CE

_Dear Friends,

Apologies for cross-postings.

Many thanks to all of you who have been giving views across the e-lists of the
issue of renaming London Cycling Campaign as London Cyclists. It seems that not
everyone has seen the rationale for such a rename, so please allow me to draw
the strands together via this email. (I apologise in advance for its length.)

Our starting point is our ambition. In recent years we have delivered a very
important increase in the number and profile of our public campaigns (on HGVs,
Parking and Theft) as well as continued our long tradition of applying expert
pressure on specific issues policy issues (from the Olympics to motorcycles in
bus lanes). But set against the scale of the challenge that remains this is
clearly not enough. We need bring even greater scale and impact to our
campaigning, That's why at the AGM last year I announced our intention to run a
campaign on the 2012 London Elections that surpasses anything we have done in
recent times in terms of public appeal and `bite'. I also announced that we will
run an online consultation with members as to what high impact, transformative
single issue this campaign should have as its theme.

But in pursuing our ambitions we have to ask ourselves if we are yet big enough,
and delivering sufficient breadth of activism, to make the above campaigns – or
indeed any other campaign – a success. Indeed, as cycling has increased in
popularity, and as other bodies are increasing their own outreach to cyclists,
our membership (and activism) must grow in line. At the moment it isn't, and
hasn't for some time. We need a change in approach.

That is why we are pursuing a rename (but not in isolation – see below). As a
member of a number of years standing myself I am aware of the organisation's
heritage, and certainly nothing is `broken'. But equally can we really argue
that we are reaching out to `everyday' cyclists as well as we might? This name
change hasn't come through focus groups or the use of management consultancies.
It has come from the Board of Trustees and Staff taking the view that we wish to
project a more personal and less institutional image to the public. It is a
positive proposition not because we are failing, but because we think this
rename will help us to do better. We realise that there are many pros and cons
with any new name, but feel that on balance this new name (taken with all the
other measures described in this message) will aid us do better.

I mentioned above that this renaming would not take place in isolation. This is
an absolutely crucial point. I have already touched on our high ambitions
regarding next year's London Elections – because what we actually do counts for
much more than what we call ourselves (especially as we are not exactly a
household name – yet). Please allow me to also mention some other changes that
are afoot.

First the website. Along with the name change we will launch a new website in
April. It will be much more `people-focussed' in style and content, and will
more strongly appeal to the breadth of folk who cycle in London. It will have
mapping to allow members to highlight what is good about cycling and better
campaign against what is bad. It will have forums to better facilitate debate
and decision-making. In short, it will be a more effective platform to engage
with each other, reach out to the general public and promote our campaigns.

Second we are revamping our approach to income generation to enable this
increased campaigning work and make us less dependent on external funding. We
narrowly avoided an extremely damaging drop in income this year and need to
buttress and increase our funding base. (In passing, we envisage that a name
change will be helpful in this area too.)

Finally we are overhauling our policy positions to give them greater coherency
and clarity, and in will better articulate them to decision-makers and the
public. Some of you are already engaging in this process.

So I hope it is transparent that this name change in itself is, in one sense,
not the big issue: it is instead a part (albeit a vital one) of a package of
measures expressly designed to increase our campaigning impact as their ultimate
objective. Even this won't be enough. We will need to adapt and progress even
further over the coming months and years to maintain and enhance our position as
London's premier cycling advocacy organisation.

In conclusion the Board and I very much understand and appreciate that many
members will not be supportive of this rename. On the other hand I am confident
that many members will be. I hope that in time we will be able to gain the
support of everyone. Either way I am sure we all agree that our organisation's
impact, as measured against the scale of the challenge we face is (despite past
successes) not as great as we all strive and yearn for. Everything I have
described in this email (and the measures still to come) - taken as a whole -
are a considered attempt to address this.

Thanks for your kind attention (and I hope to see as many of you as possible
participating in our No More Lethal Lorries Day of Action on Wednesday 30th).
_
Appparently it's about projecting a more personal and less institutional image. I suppose it's not for me to say, but I'm not overwhelmed by this, and wonder (from some experience) if the Board isn't being given something to think about while the executive goes on its merry way......


----------



## Flying Dodo (23 Mar 2011)

Why not just call it "London Cyclists Club".


----------



## StuartG (23 Mar 2011)

What's in a name? 

The less the better. Enter lcc.org.uk and you are there ... and as they are probably too late to grab lc.org uk - and londoncyclists.org.uk appears to be in the hands of a domain squatter . Our local group has their domain names registered to the London Cycling Campaign so we would have to pay nominet to change them or risk losing them (again) if the registered contact goes AWOL.

This is nonsense. I've worked for major corporations where branding is important and we were prepared to throw money at it - but screwing up local voluntary groups in unexpected ways is plain silly.

A new CE, and we hope a breath of fresh air. But I hope he soon realises this is a dead easy way to unnecessarily alienate the people who should be rooting for him. I hope he listens ...


----------



## StuartG (23 Mar 2011)

Whoops - on checking the address of londoncyclists.org.uk looks strangely familiar. Registered on 17/12/2010 so looks if decision may have already been made.


----------



## her_welshness (23 Mar 2011)

StuartG said:


> This is nonsense. I've worked for major corporations where branding is important and we were prepared to throw money at it - but screwing up local voluntary groups in unexpected ways is plain silly.
> 
> A new CE, and we hope a breath of fresh air. But I hope he soon realises this is a dead easy way to unnecessarily alienate the people who should be rooting for him. I hope he listens ...



Yep, get a new CE in and they will ring in the changes. Umm, what shall we do, I know we will have a rebrand! 

I will look forward though to the new web-site!


----------



## ttcycle (23 Mar 2011)

Saw those emails too, this sadly reminds me of another cycling organisation going through a rebrand.

Sad...


----------



## jonesy (23 Mar 2011)

Does this mean they want to go down the road followed by some other cycling organisations- getting into consultancy, start doing lots of government contracts, become dependent upon government grants to support increasing staff numbers, become a charitable trust, sit on the board of lots of quangos etc etc because even if that were a desirable road, the government funding boat was missed some years ago...


----------



## Fab Foodie (24 Mar 2011)

I think the name change is utter shoot.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Mar 2011)

Fab Foodie said:


> I think the name change is utter shoot.


....writes our Diplomatic Correspondent.......


----------



## Fab Foodie (24 Mar 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> ....writes our Diplomatic Correspondent.......



Well it was late and I'd just returned from a 'Funeral for a friend' gig in Birmingham with my daughter (I was still shell-shocked).

In my view, the name stated the organisers aims quite clearly. It would (I would hope) attract those cyclists who want to make a difference rather than those who are just keen bike riders. The 'Militant' wing of cycling! There are already clubs and organisations for keen bikers and if there are not then maybe there is room for such. The question is whether the re-brand the LCC isd the way? IMO it will become just another club with it's campaigning zeal severely diminished. We have enough toothless tigers with the CTC.

But I have another personal fondness for the LCC. You may be aware from my P&L driblings and occasional rants, that I'm a good grumbler, but poor activist. I have only ever been on one demonstration in my life organised by ..... LCC, (and that was during the early Thatcher years where there was plenty to demonstrate about). They even got Ivor Cutler along to entertain us afterwards in Jubilee gardens. Heady stuff, my student years. Long live the LCC.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Mar 2011)

we await the photographs of the younger Foodie, Che Guevara beret at a jaunty angle, holding one clenched fist aloft and crying 'Power to the People that Pedal'.


----------



## Fab Foodie (24 Mar 2011)

AdrianC said:


> Or singing "I walk along the dusty road, a doughnut in my hand."



There's a reason I've an aero-belly you know


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Mar 2011)

A sure sign that an organisation has become 'institutionalised' is when it no longer looks beyond its friends. The thrust of the No More Lethal Lorries campaign is that all Council lorry drivers should receive training (and that training would be provided by.......) and yet the sad evidence in headlines suggests that it is not Council lorries running over cyclists, but construction traffic.


----------



## bof (25 Mar 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> A sure sign that an organisation has become 'institutionalised' is when it no longer looks beyond its friends. The thrust of the No More Lethal Lorries campaign is that all Council lorry drivers should receive training (and that training would be provided by.......) and yet the sad evidence in headlines suggests that it is not Council lorries running over cyclists, but construction traffic.



Excellent point - they are doing sfa about Thames Materials as far as I can see, for instance.


----------



## stowie (26 Mar 2011)

I quite like the idea of changing the name to "London Cyclists". But I cannot imagine that it is hardly the most pressing issue in cycle advocacy.


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Mar 2011)

stowie said:


> I quite like the idea of changing the name to "London Cyclists". But I cannot imagine that it is hardly the most pressing issue in cycle advocacy.


congratulations on sticking your head above the parapet!

Would you not agree, though that London Cycling Campaign pretty much describes what the organisation is about?


----------



## stowie (4 Apr 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> congratulations on sticking your head above the parapet!
> 
> Would you not agree, though that London Cycling Campaign pretty much describes what the organisation is about?



It does, but this might not be the best name. Otherwise BP, for example, would be better called "drills oil and related products from the ground to refine and sell".

London Cyclists sounds much more inclusive. If you are looking to include people are aren't really into campaigning then having campaign in the title may not be such a great idea. Also, if the organisation is looking to do many things (for example the insurance, representing cyclists after accidents, providing training and advice) then the word campaign may strike the wrong note. When people hear "campaign" they think of pressure groups and politics. When in fact this is only part of what LCC may want to be associated with.

This isn't a _massive _deal. Certainly I think that LCC should be looking to be more effective in the campaigns it does run as opposed to machinations over the name. But the name can be a big deal, and I don't know, but maybe they know people don't associate the right things to the name as it stands.

I am in marketing. Can you tell?


----------



## henshaw11 (4 Apr 2011)

I think my head must work the other way round - I'm more likely to look at an organisation called 'London Cycle Campaign' - 'London Cyclists' just sounds very wishy-washy and indicative of nothing in particular (which I suppose is partly the intent...)


----------



## stowie (5 Apr 2011)

henshaw11 said:


> I think my head must work the other way round - I'm more likely to look at an organisation called 'London Cycle Campaign' - 'London Cyclists' just sounds very wishy-washy and indicative of nothing in particular (which I suppose is partly the intent...)



Yes - if the idea is to attract people who aren't interested in campaigning the idea is to keep it fairly generic. The idea would be to attract people like yourself with a message as opposed to the name. This way the message can be changed for different audiences.

So if a "London Cyclists" advert said about the campaigning they did this may make the group appeal to you, but then another advert may promote their insurance and legal services which may appeal to a completely different group. Look at it this way - if LCC decided to expand to cover cyclists outside London, then the name would appear to be misleading, I assume they think the same about the campaign word because they want to be seen to be more than a campaigning group.

All this isn't all that important for LCC in my opinion. I would be surprised if the name is critical to their growth - although it certainly is with some organisations and companies. Maybe it is the new leadership looking to make their mark?


----------



## jonesy (5 Apr 2011)

stowie said:


> Yes - if the idea is to attract people who aren't interested in campaigning the idea is to keep it fairly generic. The idea would be to attract people like yourself with a message as opposed to the name. This way the message can be changed for different audiences.
> 
> So if a "London Cyclists" advert said about the campaigning they did this may make the group appeal to you, but then another advert may promote their insurance and legal services which may appeal to a completely different group. Look at it this way - if LCC decided to expand to cover cyclists outside London, then the name would appear to be misleading,* I assume they think the same about the campaign word because they want to be seen to be more than a campaigning group.*
> 
> All this isn't all that important for LCC in my opinion. I would be surprised if the name is critical to their growth - although it certainly is with some organisations and companies. Maybe it is the new leadership looking to make their mark?



But that is probably the concern people have, namely that they want the LCC to be a campaigning group, and to focus on that. Diversifying is all very well if you are a private business whose sole purpose is to make money, but that's not what the LCC is for. I'd be worried that they could lose focus and end up trying to do too many things badly rather than sticking with doing their core function well.


----------



## Fab Foodie (5 Apr 2011)

jonesy said:


> But that is probably the concern people have, namely that they want the LCC to be a campaigning group, and to focus on that. Diversifying is all very well if you are a private business whose sole purpose is to make money, but that's not what the LCC is for. *I'd be worried that they could lose focus and end up trying to do too many things badly rather than sticking with doing their core function well.
> *



Bit like the CTC then ....


----------



## sheddy (5 Apr 2011)

Possibly someone high up has noticed that the LCC has been hopeless at campaigning ?
I'll get my coat...


----------



## stowie (5 Apr 2011)

jonesy said:


> But that is probably the concern people have, namely that they want the LCC to be a campaigning group, and to focus on that. Diversifying is all very well if you are a private business whose sole purpose is to make money, but that's not what the LCC is for. I'd be worried that they could lose focus and end up trying to do too many things badly rather than sticking with doing their core function well.



I accept that is a real danger. All I said was that I quite like the name "London Cyclists" and that I could understand why they might want to change the name. I wasn't passing judgement on whether their strategy was good!

In fact, I think that organisations like LCC absolutely need to appeal to more cyclists. I don't know what their membership is at the moment, but maybe they have identified that they are not getting members from certain types of cyclists. I don't know - I simply pay my subs each year for membership.

More than once has diversification killed a business, so the danger in this strategy is real. But the diversification in the case of LCC is simply to appeal to more of their intended audience - cyclists. If an organisation cannot campaign and provide membership services at the same time it should really have a long look at itself.


----------



## jonesy (5 Apr 2011)

Just to be clear, I don't have a problem in principle with a campaigning organisation also providing member services, these can work well together, after all the AA and RAC did both for many years. Services and campaigns can both be regarded as working on behalf of members' interests, as long as services are only provided where there is a clear need that isn't being met elsewhere. There isn't any point a campaigning organisation trying to compete to provide services in sectors where there is already a competitive market, apart from anything else it is unlikely to be successful and would end up wasting its members money.

[text moved from edit of earlier post, as it makes more sense as a reply to Stowie's post]


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Apr 2011)

there's something particular about the LCC, though. Everything they do is, in a way, a campaign. The benefits of having 10% off at something like 120 bike shops in London, is, in a sense, a campaigning benefit, because the LCC doesn't do mail order the way that the CTC does mail order. The rides they organise are sort of educational.

What I'm trying to say is the 'Campaign' has a kind of moral purpose, and that seems to suit the LCC...

The risk is that you piss off the people who do the local campaigning (see CTC ibid). That's what makes this look ill-judged. The LCC is making a similar mistake to the CTC.

I wish them well, whatever, though


----------



## henshaw11 (6 Apr 2011)

>What I'm trying to say is the 'Campaign' has a kind of moral purpose, and that seems to suit the LCC...

Yup, kinda my thinking...

I almost joined the LCC rather than the CTC last year (or so), in part for the insurance but I thought the ctc bit might be a bit more relevant ridewise (although I'm only just outside Greater London) - tho' in reality I expect most of the groups rides I do this year are going to be (sort of) via cyclechat anyway - fnrttc or otherwise


----------



## andym (16 Apr 2011)

Can I stick my head above the parapet? I prefer London Cyclists - it sounds less institutional.

And hurrah that the LCC is finally making an issue of the deaths involving HGVs. Maybe with the change of CE and change of name it might actually do more campaigning?


----------



## stowie (16 Apr 2011)

User said:


> Errr.... LCC does already cover cyclists outside London. You don't have to live in London to be a member of LCC. I haven't lived in London for almost two years and I know someone in Scotland, who has never lived in London, who's a member.



For sure LCC will take your money even if you live outside London. But I haven't seen them start to campaign in Scotland for instance. They specifically campaign in London - if someone in Scotland thinks that they want to join, this is different to the LCC representing Scotland cyclists.


----------



## gaz (21 Apr 2011)

I wonder what Andreas would say about this http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Apr 2011)

gaz said:


> I wonder what Andreas would say about this http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/


whoops! That's a big snafu!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (22 Apr 2011)

I think the name-change and more importantly the associated repositioning makes sense looked at from outside. Cycling in the UK is going through a process of moving out from a 'ghetto' to being potentially something more like it is in the rest of northern Europe - in a sense when campaigns become something more than this, it is a marker of growing success. Making groups like LCC be seen to be more representative of a wider constituency and more open can only be socially and politically a good thing. Of course what individual members or members in particular groups do needn't change at all. 

In Ontario we are still very much in the ghetto. In my town the first cycling campaign has only just been set up. I really look forward to the day when we can be more than a 'campaign' and be representing a larger range of people who are a major component of the transport system. Surely that's what all cycling campaigns want?


----------



## dellzeqq (24 May 2011)

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/wJ3bTd...z_wthY4QeMdyVWPGQ/LCC_re-brand/13_LC_0405.pdf article by the top geezer!


----------



## subaqua (24 May 2011)

redbridge LCC don't really give a flying fart about cyclists.

they put no opposition up to the proposed muster and briefing centre planned for Wanstead flats. they said that they couldn't see anything that would affect cycling . really- what about all the extra traffic and loss of off road cycling area. 

they can change their name to whatever they want AFAIAC.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 May 2011)

I'm a member, and live in Sussex. Less than 0.01% of my cycling is in London, but anything is better than being a CTC member.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 May 2011)

subaqua said:


> redbridge LCC don't really give a flying fart about cyclists.


you may have been unlucky. Lambeth CC is a very fine organisation - and Wandsworth CC might be small, but they know their stuff.


----------



## subaqua (24 May 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> you may have been unlucky. Lambeth CC is a very fine organisation - and Wandsworth CC might be small, but they know their stuff.




I think it might be NE London apathy.


----------



## CotterPin (26 May 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> you may have been unlucky. Lambeth CC is a very fine organisation - and Wandsworth CC might be small, but they know their stuff.






subaqua said:


> I think it might be NE London apathy.



It's always worth bearing in mind that the local groups of the LCC are made up entirely of volunteers. If you are not happy with what they are doing the answer is simple.


----------



## subaqua (26 May 2011)

CotterPin said:


> It's always worth bearing in mind that the local groups of the LCC are made up entirely of volunteers. If you are not happy with what they are doing the answer is simple.




join CTC


----------



## stowie (26 May 2011)

subaqua said:


> I think it might be NE London apathy.



have you attended any WF LCC events? Being a fellow inmate lucky resident of Waltham Forest?

I have had intentions of attending on the monthly meetings, but have been away when they have been held previously. Maybe the next one will work out.

I get the impression they are quite active. I am the first to be critical of the often pathetic and laughable attempts at cycling infrastructure in the borough, but feel I should put my money where my mouth by getting a bit more involved.


----------



## dand_uk (26 May 2011)

Fab Foodie said:


> I think the name change is utter shoot.



+1


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Jun 2011)

new website looks quite snappy.
http://new.lcc. org.uk/

and - a little less flashy, but commendable nonetheless
http://www.lambethcyclists.org.uk


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Jun 2011)

User said:


> Perhaps someone should point it out to CTC....


I bowl 'em underarm, and you despatch 'em to the boundary!


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Jun 2011)

ah. Not so good. Apparently the LCC (or LC) is trying to take the borough websites under its wing. Some of the boroughs cherish their independence - and have decent websites and discussion groups of their own. Hmmmm............


----------



## gaz (5 Jun 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> ah. Not so good. Apparently the LCC (or LC) is trying to take the borough websites under its wing. Some of the boroughs cherish their independence - and have decent websites and discussion groups of their own. Hmmmm............



A fair few of them already have sub lcc websites. croydon for example looks like the homepage was last updated in 2009






So it's probably good for some and bad for others.


----------

