Surprised we haven’t done this yet, but what do we reckon?

Misdirected leap further down the path of bland charity corporatism, or a bold opportunity to blast out the cobwebs and appeal to a wider segment of the cycling community?

I imagine it’s aiming at the latter. They are a great campaigning organisation and bums on seats makes for a louder voice for us all. I’ll not be cancelling my subs any time soon just because of some vanilla rebranding.

I’ve shat better logos than this.

So we now have:
British / Scottish Cycling
Cycling Scotland
Cycling UK
…..

😕

Seems like a further move away from the cycling members to the corporate monster it seemed to have become.

And all those member group shirts now obsolete, or collector’s items 🙂

I wonder what they’ll call CTC Scotland now, surely not Cycling UK Scotland?

Just an extension of why I cancelled my membership. I wanted a touring club not an embrace everything, self righteous quango.
It irritated me that it calls itself the national cycle organisation”. Sorry, but appointed by who? Ah yourself.
The name sucks. A bit like 5th gear, Fit on tools etc. It smacks of 2nd rate naivety. The name doesn’t even say anything, admittedly like British Cycling, which is just a phrase not a sentence. At least BC could be used as a general, if wildly inaccurate term eg British cycling has expanded in numbers this year. I am waiting for the day when the organisation has the balls to abandon any links with a CTC and that name can proudly hold its head up again not getting involved with political battles.
And the logo is crap, dated, drawn by a 5 year old. What a waste of campaigning money.

For a split second I thought someone had posted a Wiggle logo above. 😀

Corporate monster? Are you talking about CTC? It’s hardly Amazon or Monsanto is it.

We should judge them on what they do rather than what the logo looks like IMO.

I’ve been impressed with their campaigning work myself.

Now that’s it. I haven’t. Thing is if we could stop drivers being so inconsiderate there would be bugger all in the way of problems to sort out. Who would need a cycle way from some suburban ghetto to the middle of a city if we could do it safely. Spend all the campaigning money on that , maybe put Boardmans video on before Neighbours etc and everything else wouldn’t be needed.

wonder what they’ll call CTC Scotland now, surely not Cycling UK Scotland?

I suspect Cycling Scotland may have something to say if they do…

Being a charity just involves red tape, rules and regulations doesn’t it? Is there a clear vision or is it just more corporate tosh? The cyclists’ champion wording stinks of corporate bollox and irrelevance.

It all becomes rather identikit.

Misdirected leap further down the path of bland charity corporatism

This. I had been interested in CTC, but not now unfortunately.

It’ll be a combination of BC and Sustrans in the Saxon household, I think.

P.s. I think ‘the cyclists’ champion’ is a nice sentiment and is what I hope they will become.

Cyclists Touring Club made them sound like they were only for cycle tourers (completely different to bike packers of course) which isn’t the case. The name needed changing. I am a member and I rejoined after a BIG gap because someone reminded me just how much he had benefited from being a member when he really needed their help.

I just hope they can focus on justice, access, stuff I care about rather than internal politics.

😀 Just needs some ethnic diversity photos with smiling children.

Of course they needed to change the name, they’re not a cycle touring organisation any more so being called the cycle touring club is just absurd. No idea how people can argue with that tbh.

I know some folks wish it was still just a cycle touring club, and that’s a different matter… But frankly they’re a useful force for us. Maybe BC can give up their token efforts at being anything but a race organisation, after all they don’t have the capability to do even that core job very well.

Should have just called themselves Gnarmac.

Rebranding any organisation is spectacularly hard/tedious work, particularly in the charity/NGO sector where a desire for inclusivity results in everybody having a say. Nothing beautiful was ever built by a committee.

I get the strategy behind the rebrand. I fear that the design or branding firm chosen to execute the strategy may have been severely hindered by some internal politics or just not very good. Putting colour and typeface choice aside (both quite dated) the kerning sucks.

the kerning sucks.

You’ve just put your finger on what was bothering me about it.

a desire for inclusivity results in everybody having a say. Nothing beautiful was ever built by a committee.

Couldn’t agree more yet it happens so often.

Interesting that people’s instant response is to see the logo as dated, but I wonder if that’s maybe intentional?

It put me in mind of 70s/80s road safety campaigns:
[video]https://youtu.be/Bwzv014Al_w[/video]

I wonder if they’re trying to appeal to 30/40/50 something’s wistful memories of simpler times, when riding a bike wasn’t some sort of mission statement…

I think they have been hampered by the name and associated image for a while, and there is a gap, BC doesn’t feel like much more than the national branch of the UCI…

Of course I bet they are also keen not to be confused with BC, so there’s already some constraints like not using the same red/white/blue colour scheme, or the word ‘British’…

Maybe we should see what sort of content accompanies the change in style…

Of course they needed to change the name, they’re not a cycle touring organisation any more so being called the cycle touring club is just absurd. No idea how people can argue with that tbh.

I know some folks wish it was still just a cycle touring club, and that’s a different matter… But frankly they’re a useful force for us.
+1, they had to get away from the perception of fuddy-duddy tourers really, however much the old guard might protest.

IMO they are basically the #1 group lobbying for cycling in the UK, whatever they’re called.

That said, the new branding is bland at best and the name is a bit confusing given that we already have British Cycling. I wouldn’t argue with the ‘Cyclists’ champions’ bit in that it’s not a misrepresentation of what they do, but the overall effect is pretty uninspired and cheap looking.

I don’t suppose there’s ever been a rebranding or redesign that went down well though.

They needed to do something because the name no longer represented what they stood for. When I joined about 5 years ago, I was amused by the number of grumpy letters from people pointing out that the T stood for ‘touring’ and therefore other forms of riding, like mountain biking had no place in the organisation.
I do feel they are very focussed on commuting in London these days, but perhaps that’s just my perception.

IMO they are basically the #1 group lobbying for cycling in the UK, whatever they’re called.

They could be and for all cyclists. I find it rather odd that they dispensed with the services of their MTB person so that meant mtb went off their radar, except for articles in their magazine, but then went and got involved in trails for Wales. Is confused.

If they genuinely represented all cycling with associated campaigning then that would be commendable and definitely could result in increased membership. Perhaps that will happen eventually, who knows.

My membership has almost expired, £45 is a lot for liability insurance so am checking out other organisations for value for money.

I do feel they are very focussed on commuting in London these days, but perhaps that’s just my perception.

Not just you. That was my impression over the past few years.

I believe there will be more MTB-related activity in future though.

As rebrands go – its a bit odd that their website is still the old brand! However a quick bit of research suggests its probably a bit of a PR/Management disaster with disgruntled former trustees campaigning against it, the new Trademark application being publicised before the official announcement etc.

FWIW I think it IS helpful that “riding bikes” and “racing bikes” are represented by different groups. I’ve never joined CTC because I don’t “tour” (although I have started to be “tour curious” recently!). Its not a pretty logo, but I’d rather they spent their charity funds on their main objective than on overpriced designers.

I quite like it.

About time too.
I’m sure all the good people on the ground will carry on regardless.

poly – how do you know that the logo was done on the cheap and not by an expensive designer? 😉

Good designers are not neccesarily expensive designers. Particularly outside London.

rhayter – Member

Nothing beautiful was ever built by a committee.

Aside, but our big boss likes making sweeping decisions without real consultation and says “If you try and build a racehorse by committee, you end up with a camel”. And we say “Yeah but if you get the “surviving in the desert working group” together, they’ll tell you not to get a ****ing racehorse.

I knew it would go badly once they voted to change from club to charity. I voted against as it was obvious the professionals (no not them lads from the 70’s) who’d got themselves involved were looking at all the grant monies they could get hold of and spend spend spend. There was no problem with the original CTC club status.

I shall now ride of on my curly Hetchins whilst wearing my plus fours and alpaca jacket. Not to fast as me pipe will burn to quickly.

@ mt – why did so many vote for it to become a charity?

@CG-I’m not fully sure why but it was possibly thought that the CTC could become a more campaign lead organisation, though in my view it had done this pretty well for some time without the interference of government bodies. As a charity the CTC can now access monies not just from the membership (tax reliefs, grants, lottery funds etc), it has also become less responsibly to the membership (in my view).

I think with this they may end up alienating more people than recruiting short term. Long term I’ve no idea.

I like the ctc and have been a member for years and while they’ll basically keep doing what they’ve always done and this is just new packaging I’m already unsure about next year’s membership.

Font reminds me of a baby formula branding.

@CG-I’m not fully sure why but it was possibly thought that the CTC could become a more campaign lead organisation, though in my view it had done this pretty well for some time without the interference of government bodies. As a charity the CTC can now access monies not just from the membership (tax reliefs, grants, lottery funds etc), it has also become less responsibly to the membership (in my view).

mt – thanks for replying with your thoughts. My concern is that there could be less campaigning with efforts and money going elsewhere.