Name change for London Cycling Campaign

[dellzeqq]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[stowie]

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]

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]

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]

>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]

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?