Waterways Charity finally gets a name

[adam1uk]

Any proof of this or have they got the job of producing the signs?

Sue

 

I think the designers, Pentagram, are a bit beyond producing signs!

 

You could always read the Trustees report, here.

 

Some extracts:

 

We decided to ask a number of leading design agencies if they were willing to take on the exciting project of creating a new name and symbol for a major new national charity and do it for free! There was considerable interest but Pentagram were the first to make a firm commitment, no doubt inspired by their classic work on the current BW logo over 20 years ago! John Rushworth, a partner in the firm and the person who did that earlier design work, took responsibility again this time.

 

Gradually, we will see documents such as press releases and reports, carry the name and symbol whilst it will take more time to plan wider use. It is all the existing signs and symbols on the network that will provide us with the greatest challenge and potentially the most costly part of implementation.

 

We are determined to make maximum impact for minimum cost. That means the changeover cannot and will not happen overnight and will be prioritised to change those things that make greatest impact first.

 

Some are "no brainers‟. For instance, for some time BW has been ordering new road vehicles unbadged in plain white so these vehicles can have the new name and symbol applied when they are next due for service. Publicity material for the new Trust can be printed appropriately. But, we know there are thousands of signs, boats, uniforms etc. across the whole 2000 miles of waterways. We haven‟t yet decided the order and priority for each one BUT we have asked for and been offered help from many waterway organisations including the Inland Waterways Association.

 

Many have generously said that they will help rebadge key sites if we could provide the right „signing kit‟ of vinyls, cleaning materials, etc. We are hopeful we can get these materials sponsored and we are working out a priority list of sites to see if we can all agree a „changeover day‟ associated with the launch the whole thing should also get us great publicity if we work together on it!

Edited October 6, 2011 by adam1uk

[carlt]

I think the designers, Pentagram, are a bit beyond producing signs!...

 

...Some extracts:

 

"Excuse me. What's that star on the wall for?"

 

"You... made me miss."

 

"Sorry."

 

"I've never missed that board before."

[Laurence Hogg]

Absolute crap, any of us could have photoshopped the logo in 5 mins. Inspiring name to market worldwide!

"CANAL & RIVER TRUST - The charity running British Waterways"

 

for those unaware thats 64 Clarendon Rd, BW's headquarters

Edited October 6, 2011 by Laurence Hogg

[Biggles]

I really don't know why we feel so strong about all this rebranding.

 

We have to accept that the consultaion process is just retoric. If there is a buck to be made and a brown envelope heading somewhere, you know where I'm going with this.

 

I remember there was a questionere about the new name. When I last looked at the poll results it was overwhelmenly in favour of keeping the BW logo and branding with the trust bit being reserved for official paperework.

 

It's all B*ll*cks, those with vested interestes will manipulate the results to line their pockets.

[cotswoldsman]

And what does it mean? No mention of being concerned with navigation (even a boat rather than or as well as a swan would have hinted at that), no mention of being English.

Thank god it didn't cost them anything.

 

 

 

Maybe because boaters represent such a small percentage of the potential donations to the new trust.

 

Any proof of this or have they got the job of producing the signs?

Sue

 

Would only expect negative post from you sue, glad to see that a member of NABO is one of the people that just wants to post negative stuff about the new charity.

 

Absolute crap, any of us could have photoshopped the logo in 5 mins. Inspiring name to market worldwide!

"CANAL & RIVER TRUST - The charity running British Waterways"

 

 

 

Laurence they are not the charity running British Waterways, they are the charity that will be looking after our canals and rivers.

Edited October 7, 2011 by cotswoldsman

[magpie patrick]

The brand is meant to appeal to and attract a wider audience than just boaters to the waterways.

 

But there in lies the problem. Canals might not be primarily about boaters, but they are primarily about boats, yes people fish them and people look for the wildlife, but there is a reason why a navigable waterway attracts a heck of a lot more land based bankside interest than an unnavigable one. Boats. How many examples do you want. I'm working with a developer in London who is willing to spend thick end of a million on making a piece of water navigable and having moorings on it. They're not interested in wildlife or anglers, they want the franchised bar and restaurant to overlook boats. Why do businesses spring up offering boat trips on the shortest length of navigable waterway (Roath Park Lake in Cardiff, the Derwent in Belper, just two examples). Boats. The public at large are fascinated by boats. A fundamental mistake is being made, just because boaters are a relatively small percentage of canal users doesn't mean that boats are not important.

[cotswoldsman]

But there in lies the problem. Canals might not be primarily about boaters, but they are primarily about boats, yes people fish them and people look for the wildlife, but there is a reason why a navigable waterway attracts a heck of a lot more land based bankside interest than an unnavigable one. Boats. How many examples do you want. I'm working with a developer in London who is willing to spend thick end of a million on making a piece of water navigable and having moorings on it. They're not interested in wildlife or anglers, they want the franchised bar and restaurant to overlook boats. Why do businesses spring up offering boat trips on the shortest length of navigable waterway (Roath Park Lake in Cardiff, the Derwent in Belper, just two examples). Boats. The public at large are fascinated by boats. A fundamental mistake is being made, just because boaters are a relatively small percentage of canal users doesn't mean that boats are not important.

 

Yes you make a good point, but I think the majority of donations will come from non boaters. I think what they are trying to achieve is to make it seem that donations will not be for the exclusive use of elitist boaters, far better to promote the wild life etc.

[magpie patrick]

Yes you make a good point, but I think the majority of donations will come from non boaters. I think what they are trying to achieve is to make it seem that donations will not be for the exclusive use of elitist boaters, far better to promote the wild life etc.

 

I agree with you, that's exactly what they are trying to achieve, and I think they are making a big mistake.

 

Do the residents of Droitwich currently care that all those boaters that have called this summer appear to have more money than them? (I use the word appear advisedly)? I doubt it. Without environmental mitigation (which had to be paid for) the canal could not have been restored because the wildlife trust would have been able to sustain an objection, but the crowds, and the tourist spending, are notably absent from the new reed beds. By all means promote waterways for all, but BW and the others should not be pretending that boating isn't important. The reed bed allowed the Droitwich Canal to be restored, without boaters, there was no point restoring it.

[Guest]

A fundamental mistake is being made, just because boaters are a relatively small percentage of canal users doesn't mean that boats are not important.

 

not forgetting they are also the ones who pay the most (by a country mile) to be on the system, walkers and cyclist pay nowt and those maggot drowners that pay anything a pittance in comparison...

[cotswoldsman]

not forgetting they are also the ones who pay the most (by a country mile) to be on the system, walkers and cyclist pay nowt and those maggot drowners that pay anything a pittance in comparison...

 

I think they pay the most because if there were no boaters then the need for maintenance would drop dramaticly. The new charity needs to raise money from non boaters to the benefit of boaters. Going by a lot of the posts on here it seems like they can not rely on boaters for donations. Without donations from non boaters we either pay a lot more for our licence or just stop cruising.

[Guest]

I think they pay the most because if there were no boaters then the need for maintenance would drop dramaticly. The new charity needs to raise money from non boaters to the benefit of boaters. Going by a lot of the posts on here it seems like they can not rely on boaters for donations. Without donations from non boaters we either pay a lot more for our licence or just stop cruising.

 

Quite probably true - but the fact is that if boaters didn't pay what they did the system would eventually fall into disrepair and then fill in/silt up and there would be nothing for the fishers to fish and no shiny tarmac/paved towpaths to walk/ride...

[carlt]

....but the crowds, and the tourist spending, are notably absent from the new reed beds.

Sorry Patrick but that is a good thing, reinforcing my view that, if the zealots on both sides can be ignored, wildlife conservation and navigation can peacefully coexist and be mutually beneficial.

 

Personally I can live with the logo but I hate the name because the implication is that they are responsible for all canals and rivers, navigable or not.

 

If they were not allowed to have 'British' in the title, for fear of confusing people that they had all of the British waterways, why have they settled for a name that could lead people into thinking that they can ring up about every little river or stream?

 

That aside the decision has been made and we have to play the hand we've been dealt.

 

It is perhaps time to give them a chance and see how they go.

[cotswoldsman]

Quite probably true - but the fact is that if boaters didn't pay what they did the system would eventually fall into disrepair and then fill in/silt up and there would be nothing for the fishers to fish and no shiny tarmac/paved towpaths to walk/ride...

 

Martin I think we are just going to go round in circles here. If all boater pay an average of £600 licence that generates £18 million if you deducted the £18 million from the total cost of maintaining the system I think it would be fine for walkers, fisherpersons and cyclists.

All I am trying to say is that as boaters we must not live under the belief that the system is just for us so the new name and logo must be all inclusive.

 

That aside the decision has been made and we have to play the hand we've been dealt.

 

It is perhaps time to give them a chance and see how they go.

 

Have a greenie.

 

Edited to say will have to give you the greenie later as I do not seem to have any left (don't understand why as I have not given any today yet!!)

Edited October 7, 2011 by cotswoldsman

[Chris Pink]

 

 

 

Would only expect negative post from you sue, glad to see that a representative of NABO is one of the people that just wants to post negative stuff about the new charity.

 

.

 

She is not.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Chris Pink

[cotswoldsman]

She is not.

 

Fair enough will edit my post.

[carlt]

She is not.

Yes, to be fair, of late she hasn't been banging on about them nearly so much as she used to.

 

Perhaps she got the same "For pity's sake shut up! You're doing more harm than good." email that ArTone received.

[sueb]

Maybe because boaters represent such a small percentage of the potential donations to the new trust.

 

 

 

Would only expect negative post from you sue, glad to see that a representative of NABO is one of the people that just wants to post negative stuff about the new charity.

 

 

 

Laurence they are not the charity running British Waterways, they are the charity that will be looking after our canals and rivers.

Why do you feel the need to link my posts to Nabo, as if I am an official spokesperson? I asked a question which wasn't even negative. You are welcome to take my place on Nabo council and contribute.

Sue

[cotswoldsman]

You are welcome to take my place on Nabo council and contribute.

Sue

 

Now I am confused do I need to re-edit my post again?

[Athy]

This Tony Hales chap at BW appears to have but a slender grasp of history and georgraphy. he says "Canals and rivers have been part of the fabric of the landscape for 250 years". Er, I heard that rivers go back a few thousand years further than that.

Martin, the word towards which you so manfully aspire is "signage". "Sine-age" is something which afflicts older inverters.

[magpie patrick]

Sorry Patrick but that is a good thing, reinforcing my view that, if the zealots on both sides can be ignored, wildlife conservation and navigation can peacefully coexist and be mutually beneficial.

 

I agree it's a good thing Carl, what I don't agree wit is any suggestion that it's what people want to pay for

 

Personally I can live with the logo but I hate the name because the implication is that they are responsible for all canals and rivers, navigable or not.

 

This annoys me too, I live in a town with a river that hasn't been navigated (save for the canoe club) since medieval times, and CART will never be involved with it in anyway. I haven't checked, but I seem to recall there are 11,000 miles of river in this country, and the navigable mileage is only in the hundreds.

 

If they were not allowed to have 'British' in the title, for fear of confusing people that they had all of the British waterways, why have they settled for a name that could lead people into thinking that they can ring up about every little river or stream?

 

Cynically, perhaps because Canal & River Navigation Trust spells CARNT?

 

That aside the decision has been made and we have to play the hand we've been dealt.

 

It is perhaps time to give them a chance and see how they go.

 

Lie I say, I hope the exceed the expectations that the extremely poor branding suggests

[carlt]

I agree it's a good thing Carl, what I don't agree wit is any suggestion that it's what people want to pay for

I would hazard a guess that the Wildlife Trusts, collectively, are responsible for far more acreage than BW are, yet they are funded with little reward to their donors.

 

I am a member of 3 Wildlife Trusts and have never visited a reserve that carries a charge for non-members. Indeed I haven't visited a reserve, of one of the Trusts, since they dropped their independence and joined the collective.

 

Like preserving our heritage I believe we should support wildlife conservation because it is right, not because it provides a nice play area or tourist attraction.

 

Cynically, perhaps because Canal & River Navigation Trust spells CARNT?

Personally I favoured "Navigations of England & Wales Trust" (NEWT).

[mayalld]

She is not.

 

She may not be A representative of NABO. She does however appear to be representative of the generally negative tone that comes out of that organisation.

[Richard Fairhurst]

I live in a town with a river that hasn't been navigated (save for the canoe club) since medieval times, and CART will never be involved with it in anyway.

 

There's a bit of woodland down the hill from me that is nothing to do with the Woodlands Trust. I live in a historic building in which the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty (to give it its full name) has no interest. The Consumers' Association has never asked if its campaigns represent me as a consumer. The Cats Protection League has never come round and asked if our cat is all right ("woefully underfed" would of course be his answer). And so on.

[Guest]

Martin, the word towards which you so manfully aspire is "signage". "Sine-age" is something which afflicts older inverters.

 

[c c]

I like the logo and the name.

Quickly switches off computer, takes Air Raid Wardens helmet of the wall and ducks down under table