Rebranding of Cycling Uk

[mjr]

Are there actual published figures anywhere?

Page 28 of the latest annual report says steady at 71,000. https://www.cyclinguk.org/policies-and-procedures/annual-reports-and-accounts

 

[PhilipBenstead007]

Are there actual published figures anywhere?

If you look above its there.
We’re committed to making cycling accessible to everyone, no matter their age, background or ability and, as the data from 2023/24 shows (page 18), our impact as a charity continues to grow. I’m proud to see that, in addition to our loyal 70,000 members, we’ve reached over 100,000 people with our community-based cycling programmes.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

If you look above its there.
We’re committed to making cycling accessible to everyone, no matter their age, background or ability and, as the data from 2023/24 shows (page 18), our impact as a charity continues to grow. I’m proud to see that, in addition to our loyal 70,000 members, we’ve reached over 100,000 people with our community-based cycling programmes.

I was after the last few years, and actual numbers not approx. But no big deal.

 

[mjr]

I was after the last few years, and actual numbers not approx. But no big deal.

They're in the annual reports but usually rounded to nearest thousand.

 

[PhilipBenstead007]

@PhilipBenstead007, why do they feel the need for the rebrand after so short a time?

Maybe looking at the reasons they have for doing this will give them an idea of where and why the last rebrand failed. Also why many didn't renew their memberships last time.

Jon Snow stepped down as president of the CTC in 2020. Your edited, to include the piece on page 12, post shows how out if touch Cycling UK is.

Did JS step down, then dose CTC not know it?

 

[abcd efg]

The trouble is the CTC, (a wonderful organisation made up of what we might call 'classic cyclists' ie people who were bound together because of a love of cycling both touring and day to day stuff - all types of cycling actually - and it was essentialy pinched from its members by people who had a hidden and much different agenda. That meant classic cycling would have to share its place with people who saw it primarily as a means of driving social change. I have nothing against that. It may be very important. But I don't want it achieved at the expense of the first. Actually, I and many others I expect would say, we were hoodwinked into agreeing a new format that made fundamental changes to the CTC and its priorities, changes that were somewhat hidden from us when they were first being discussed. What the new people wanted was a huge membership list and a loose association with cycling and thousands of memebers to give it some cycling validity. The people like me ended up with an organisation that is very different and with much less of what we had before all of this happened.

 

[PhilipBenstead007]

The trouble is the CTC, (a wonderful organisation made up of what we might call 'classic cyclists' ie people who were bound together because of a love of cycling both touring and day-to-day stuff - all types of cycling actually - was essentialy pinched from its members by people who had a very much hidden and different agenda. That meant classic cycling would have to share its place with people who saw a potential for social change. I have nothing against the last. It may be very important. But I don't want it achieved at the expense of the first. Actually, I and many others I expect, would say, were hoodwinked into agreeing a new format that made fundamental changes to the CTC that were somewhat hidden from us when the changes were first being discussed. What the new people wanted was a huge membership list and a loose association with cycling and cyclists to give it some cycling validity. The people like me ended up with an organisation that is very different and with much less of what we had.

CTC membership was warned many times including at the CTC AGM in Sheffield. So the members just gave their vote to the chair to vote for them.

 

[matticus]

https://road.cc/content/news/shell-blamed-british-cycling-membership-drops-311731

...due to Shell sponsorship deal.
11% down. Still at least a third more than CUK, but they really ought to have more:
- massive sponsorship,
- monopoly on racing (forcing thousands to join),
- huge advertising advantage from BC riders in televised races,
- the marvellous Chris Boardman.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I got an email from CUK today saying that the date format on the membership cards they have just sent out was MM-DD-YYYY.

For 11 dates in each month this could be misleading and could be mistaken for a different DD-MM-YYYY date.

You'd have thought that a simple email to remove any ambiguity would be enough. Maybe an instruction to check the website if in doubt.

But no. CUK have decided that this is a matter that calls for repeated grovelling apologies: "we deeply regret any inconvenience" (I kid you not). What's more, they are reprinting and reposting all of the affected cards.

Now, I don't know how many cards were affected but this could potentially cost a fair whack. Not a very sensible use of funds. Have they had a surprise windfall maybe?

I can only conclude that they received a furious letter in green ink from a nutcase with too much time in their hands and have overreacted.

"deeply regret" jeez.

 

[rogerzilla]

I got an email from CUK today saying that the date format on the membership cards they have just sent out was MM-DD-YYYY.

For 11 dates in each month this could be misleading and could be mistaken for a different DD-MM-YYYY date.

'Merkin format, innit. Yuck.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I can only conclude that they received a furious letter in green ink from a nutcase

I told you not to send that letter

 

[Dogtrousers]

'Merkin format, innit. Yuck.

Well, it's just one of many potential date formats. It hardly warrants the cost of reprinting and posting stuff out when a simple email would sort it. And it's hardly "deeply regrettable". Unless they like pissing away money.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I told you not to send that letter

Shhh!

 

[Ming the Merciless]

'Merkin

Should not be seen in pubic

 

[Jameshow]

The trouble is the CTC, (a wonderful organisation made up of what we might call 'classic cyclists' ie people who were bound together because of a love of cycling both touring and day to day stuff - all types of cycling actually - and it was essentialy pinched from its members by people who had a hidden and much different agenda. That meant classic cycling would have to share its place with people who saw it primarily as a means of driving social change. I have nothing against that. It may be very important. But I don't want it achieved at the expense of the first. Actually, I and many others I expect would say, we were hoodwinked into agreeing a new format that made fundamental changes to the CTC and its priorities, changes that were somewhat hidden from us when they were first being discussed. What the new people wanted was a huge membership list and a loose association with cycling and thousands of memebers to give it some cycling validity. The people like me ended up with an organisation that is very different and with much less of what we had before all of this happened.

Yeap definitely the case tbh..
But it happens to many organisations tbh YHA, CRT, NT, etc they forget the core members and try and widen the membership and it only leads to diluting the ethos usually due to commercial motives