30%

[cotswoldsman]

Yes really!

 

You said it yourself tourists. They may be watching boats going by but they are not boaters and would probably be there if the boats did not come by.

This is really good fun!!! We can go round in circles all day here. What came first "The chicken or the egg?"

Edited August 24, 2013 by cotswoldsman

[c c]

I don't think you can use the logo without permission.

Did CART ever register the logo as a trade mark? I know they tried to but it received objections from other swan type logo owners.

[churchward]

This is really good fun!!! We can go round in circles all day here. What came first "The chicken or the egg?"

Ah yes yet more incisive sarcasm!

 

What is the on message word then? Perhaps, "everyone should be grateful for boaters and when you add it all up we pay for everything". All being even and how entertaining and a huge draw our boats are that the general public should pay the licence for us?

Edited August 24, 2013 by churchward

[dmr]

Can I introduce a different perspective??

If our boat licence was increased to just 3 times what it is now then we would pay pretty much 100%

It would hurt but I would do it, but then we are liveaboard CC'ers and canal fanatics so would still see it as reasonable value.

I realise that others could not pay and boat numbers would reduce but lets ignore that for now.

Would a single user group paying 100% actually be a good thing? Boaters could then be justified in getting whatever they want.

I might ban all cyclists (with a possible exception of those who buy a licence and don't speed and don't wear lycra).

I might ban fishermen, though might compromise at "no fishing match longer than 1/3 mile".

I might expect CaRT to tackle those canalside residents who put up No Mooring signs.

I would not allow any money to be spent on Lock gate poetry and all other non navigational projects etc etc etc.

 

.............Dave

[churchward]

I guess boaters issues over this stem from the fact that we pay to be on the cut (fair enough!) AND we also pay the towpath upkeep share as well.

 

So from a boaters point of view to hear that our concerns suddenly fall on deaf ears is a bit of a kick in the teeth. Surely you must agree that some people might want to voice their concerns over this ?

 

Please get a sense of perspective. No judge in the world agree to prosecute over someone sticking a logo in their dusty window. It would cost CRT more money than they could justify charging extra to cover it.

You would be surprised.

 

Many organisations value their logos very highly. Many multi nationals such as IBM, Pepsi and Coca Cola for example will have an entry in their financial ledgers for 100s of millions of dollars or even a billion or two representing the asset that is the value of the brand and logo.

 

They spend a lot of time and effort protecting that brand and will take people to court if necessary, individuals not just companies if necessary.

 

I know of someone who was told to remove a advertising sign from an add on package (free not commercial) for a Microsoft Simulator. It was quite a heavy approach.

 

Now CRT is not as large as the examples I listed but may wish to be just as protective of their logo. Being separated from a government dept now they are free to pursue such matters.

Can I introduce a different perspective??

If our boat licence was increased to just 3 times what it is now then we would pay pretty much 100%

It would hurt but I would do it, but then we are liveaboard CC'ers and canal fanatics so would still see it as reasonable value.

I realise that others could not pay and boat numbers would reduce but lets ignore that for now.

Would a single user group paying 100% actually be a good thing? Boaters could then be justified in getting whatever they want.

I might ban all cyclists (with a possible exception of those who buy a licence and don't speed and don't wear lycra).

I might ban fishermen, though might compromise at "no fishing match longer than 1/3 mile".

I might expect CaRT to tackle those canalside residents who put up No Mooring signs.

I would not allow any money to be spent on Lock gate poetry and all other non navigational projects etc etc etc.

 

.............Dave

My guess is that you would end up paying more than 3 times what it is now. It would drive away many boat owners I think so you would need to make up for those licences no longer paid.

 

Also what about boaters who cycle and/or fish?

[Guest]

A huge hike in licence fees would end up with many boaters quitting (count me in) and lots of abandoned boats littering the system.

[Paul C]

"Price elasticity of demand" - if the price went up then some boaters would give up/not renew licence etc. However, boaters, by their relatively large investment in their hobby/interest/lifestyle (by buying a boat) have a relatively inelastic demand of the licence.

 

Basically, if the licence fee went up by 10%, it wouldn't result in 10% reduction of boat numbers. There would be lots of moaning, lots of flapping around but it could be done and the amount of money income from licences overall would go up. Its a distinct possibility.

 

Whether the same holds for say 25%, 50%, 200% rise, I don't know - at some stage there would be a tipping point where it becomes so unaffordable that the majority of boaters would quit (eg if it were a 200% rise, I bet there would be more than 2/3 giving up) and thus licence income would overall be reduced. But then there would be less need for the 2000 miles or so of canals, and they could save a fortune in maintenance. I think this is unlikely though.

[Doorman]

They may be watching boats going by but they are not boaters and would probably be there if the boats did not come by.

Why then when there have been stoppages further upstream at Woodeves Cuttings for instance and very few if any boaters have been present, have the takings in all three pubs been dramatically affected, in particular The Shroppie Fly?

 

 

A huge hike in licence fees would end up with many boaters quitting (count me in) and lots of abandoned boats littering the system.

Catweasel, that description sounds like many of the marinas we have visited!

Edited August 24, 2013 by Doorman

[Neil2]

"Price elasticity of demand" - if the price went up then some boaters would give up/not renew licence etc. However, boaters, by their relatively large investment in their hobby/interest/lifestyle (by buying a boat) have a relatively inelastic demand of the licence.

 

Basically, if the licence fee went up by 10%, it wouldn't result in 10% reduction of boat numbers. There would be lots of moaning, lots of flapping around but it could be done and the amount of money income from licences overall would go up. Its a distinct possibility.

 

Whether the same holds for say 25%, 50%, 200% rise, I don't know - at some stage there would be a tipping point where it becomes so unaffordable that the majority of boaters would quit (eg if it were a 200% rise, I bet there would be more than 2/3 giving up) and thus licence income would overall be reduced. But then there would be less need for the 2000 miles or so of canals, and they could save a fortune in maintenance. I think this is unlikely though.

A good point but what about this:

 

If C&RT did massively increase licence fees to the extent that it was a real disincentive to boat ownership, that would lead to a fall in demand for moorings either by more people becoming CCers or moving off the system entirely. So mooring prices would fall - supply and demand and all that - and there might be a rebalancing process depending on how much marinas and C&RT were prepared to reduce their income by. This in turn would reduce C&RT revenue so we might end up back where we started.

 

This is all unlikely to happen though. You can bet a serious hike in fees would galvanise those passive users who don't make much of a fuss about the state of the canals at the moment, and I doubt the folks at C&RT want that just now.

 

As DMR says, the higher the proportion of costs paid directly by boaters is, the more power C&RT would have to devolve. Even a situation where boaters paid over 50% of the operating costs directly would place licence holders in a very powerful position and this would certainly have a major bearing on policy direction if not change it entirely.

[Paul C]

A good point but what about this:

 

If C&RT did massively increase licence fees to the extent that it was a real disincentive to boat ownership, that would lead to a fall in demand for moorings either by more people becoming CCers or moving off the system entirely. So mooring prices would fall - supply and demand and all that - and there might be a rebalancing process depending on how much marinas and C&RT were prepared to reduce their income by. This in turn would reduce C&RT revenue so we might end up back where we started.

 

This is all unlikely to happen though. You can bet a serious hike in fees would galvanise those passive users who don't make much of a fuss about the state of the canals at the moment, and I doubt the folks at C&RT want that just now.

 

As DMR says, the higher the proportion of costs paid directly by boaters is, the more power C&RT would have to devolve. Even a situation where boaters paid over 50% of the operating costs directly would place licence holders in a very powerful position and this would certainly have a major bearing on policy direction if not change it entirely.

 

I think you'd need to consider overall income per boat that CRT receives, vs the element(s) it can control - eg licence fee, and to a lesser extent things like mooring fees (which would be subject to supply/demand), marina connection fees (which probably have long term contracts on), etc Thus, the sums are less clear than a simple one product (licence) one price. As it happens, I believe from an income point of view, there is scope for increasing it, but there is a weak commitment not to since an increase much above inflation would be perceived unfair.

 

Its an interesting case on whether many boaters would continue boating, but on other waters. Some could do this, many could not. Are there any connected & navigable waters to CRT's, which 'allow' CCing? I know Bridgewater don't, and Avon don't. So the CCers would also need to consider the getting of a mooring, and the overall costs there (less diesel?) CRT almost, but not quite completely, has a monopoly.

[Jerra]

Did CART ever register the logo as a trade mark? I know they tried to but it received objections from other swan type logo owners.

My understanding is that even if you don't copyright things your original £intellectual property" is protected and people should not be copying it.

 

Just as you shouldn't copy a photograph and use it.