Club re-branding
Good to note in the annual report that the clubs unilateral and non consulted change of name and logo simply cost its members £2 million pounds. Since when have such one off exceptional items been allowed to be pushed through without reasonable discussion and some formal consultation. Even our government go through a process of consulting or is the C & MC above such reference to the people who keep them in a job..
One suggests that if the membership had been consulted and asked if they wanted to spend £2 million pounds on changing a name, that there might have been a few NO's in the feedback.
Strange world when half a dozen people can endorse such huge expenditures.
Comments
-
Best get to the forthcoming AGM and make your views known, W&J.
1 -
Our Government consults? I need to lie down and think about this........
1 -
Would do Tinwheeler but as we all know they simply don't listen or take members views into account so a waste of a journey
1 -
Much as it’s a waste of time posting about it here I guess.
1 -
Thought votes were counted after, not presumed beforehand. What if there were loads of NO,s.
0 -
Why is it a waste of time. Just a chance one or more of the knobs might just read it
0 -
Spot on, just don't know how they continue to get away with it other than the overall membership don't give a dam as long as they can find a suitable site.
0 -
Can we ask at the AGM if it would be alright to ask motor caravans to pay an add fee to help cover the cost of the "rebrand?"that was done to "encompass"them with a name change although they had been welcomed into the cc for decades before
2 -
Read your own earlier post. Same reason by your logic.
"Would do Tinwheeler but as we all know they simply don't listen or take members views into account..…"
1 -
Thanks
0 -
Sorry but that's a complete cop out. Everyone has the opportunity to attend the agm and have a voice. If more people bothered then just maybe things might be different to those that have an opinion in keyboard land?
JK
3 -
JK I'm not sure it is. As I understand it, only questions from the elected council (members representatives) are addressed at the AGM. Of course, I stand to be corrected but reading the minutes from the last AGM, it just seemed to be a pat-on-the-back exercise, voting en-bloc the usual suspects?
1 -
Where in the magazine, does it say the rebrand cost £2M?
I read that 75% of the cost fell in the reported tax year, being £1.2M
That if my maths is correct, means the total cost for the rebrand is £1.6M
I’m happy to be corrected, please point me to the page where £2M is mentioned because I can’t find it.
If the rebrand did cost £1.6M, whilst this is a huge sum, but not unexpected cost (rebrands are expensive, I’ve done it twice for my own business and each time, it has reaped huge dividend and kept my business competitive) there is rounding up, and there is ROUNDING UP!!!!
0 -
One further thing to note from the report in the magazine...
Overall revenue fell by just shy of £1M in 2017 against the previous year.
Thats a big chunk, if that was reported to me I would be asking a few questions and considering what needs to be done to reverse the trend.
I would consider a rebrand ;-)
So, while the comments come rolling in about how many serviced pitches could be bought for this large expenditure, it’s no good for the business if the membership is declining to an extent that pitches can’t be filled.
0 -
Wayne and Judie....
One suggests that if the membership had been consulted and asked if they wanted to spend £2 million pounds on changing a name, that there might have been a few NO's in the feedback.
If the membership had been consulted and informed that club revenue was falling by almost £1M year on year due to a declining membership base, less site night income and declining services spend such as insurance, those with a business head would understand the benefits of rebranding despite the cost.
Having now seen the revenue figures for 2017 against the previous year, I totally understand why the rebrand happened.
3 -
The Club made a strategic decision to rebrand the Club by changing its name to be more inclusive. You can't consult on something like that because its more than a name change. In the same way that the Club didn't consult us on buying two new sites which I expect cost far more that the cost of rebranding but I hear no complaints on that score. It is quite clear from Facebook Groups and Motorhome based forums that the Club is not automatically the choice of a fair proportion of motorhomers which might be different from a caravanners perspective. So the Club recognised that there was a large untapped group of people out there which they wanted to attract as members. From the membership numbers it seems to be working. If that is the case the investment in the name changed could work out to be money well spent so nothing really to complain about?
David
1 -
We spent many more years towing a caravan than with a motor-home. I have no issue with the name change whatsoever, but would argue that if as stated above the site income has reduced year on year, this has possibly more to do with the price per night than what the club is called. It is very easy these days, to find alternative sites in your location of choice. We are away around 100 nights per year and if we can save £5 per night that is a big chunk of our annual income as a retired couple. Again this year, we have avoided in the main, anything over £20-25 per night, which rules out lots of club sites for much of the year, but have found alternative but quite acceptable 5 van, private and sometimes CC&C sites. So for us, price is the key as we don't always want or need full blown sites but are happy to use them when they are cheaper or in a very special location.
1 -
It's a fact of business. Companies (and clubs) rebrand for many reasons and factors which are mostly down to evolving & changing markets. Rebranding does cost money. There are many instances of rebrands across history paying huge dividends!
Today I see far more motorhomes about and sites becoming far more mototorhome equiped. Time will tell but my personal opinion is that the rebrand which happened was a good and wise move.
1 -
If the membership had been consulted and informed that club revenue was falling by almost £1M year on year due to a declining membership base, less site night income and declining services spend such as insurance, those with a business head would understand the benefits of rebranding despite the cost
I have not seen the magazine yet or the report but I hope Corners has read it. It isn't yet available on line either.
peedee
0 -
Not surprised at the £1 million loss in revenue, nor the £2 million spent on rebranding. What will be interesting to see are the figures next year, trading under the new 'banner' If they continue on this downward spiral the CC Ltd will then know they dropped a clanger and wholesale changes are required to reverse the trend.
1
