Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
Laurence Hogg

CRT Logo - comments

Featured Posts

8 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

I am fully expecting The TSB to have a different name soon.

 

I also wonder why the National Gas Company keeps changing its name. It was Transco last time I thought about it, (probably a decade or so ago), but have recently seen gas vans with Cadent on the side.

 

You're probably right about TSB. The name however is inappropriate these days anyway given it is no longer a 'Trustee Savings' bank.

 

On the gas company front, it appears to have escaped you that five years ago Transco seemed to disappear and became "National Grid Gas"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
10 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

More than a few of you have been in touch recently, concerned that you’d read we are spending £2.5million on ‘rebranding’ the Trust. Put simply, we’re not.

We will be launching a revitalised brand on 22 May but no extra money, outside of what we routinely spend on promoting the Trust, is being spent. It is not at the expense of the money we spend to repair and maintain the waterways, which continues to grow year-on-year. What’s really important is why we’re doing it

 

I guess this means that there will be no new uniforms, no new vans signage, no new canal signage - nothing will be spent that was not routinely planned so as a van is replaced it will get the new logo, when a uniform needs replacing it will have the new logo.

 

It could be years and years before there is any consistency in marketing 'face' of C&RT

35872.jpg?v=e04e9e
Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

More than a few of you have been in touch recently, concerned that you’d read we are spending £2.5million on ‘rebranding’ the Trust. Put simply, we’re not.

We will be launching a revitalised brand on 22 May but no extra money, outside of what we routinely spend on promoting the Trust, is being spent. It is not at the expense of the money we spend to repair and maintain the waterways, which continues to grow year-on-year. What’s really important is why we’re doing it

As usual, it appears that CRT are responding to the wrong message.  This somewhat churlish comment suggests they are cross that some people have assumed that there will be costs involved - how dare we? 

 

My gripe is that it is the waste of manpower and energy. Whilst sitting in an office getting excited about the prospect of  a new logo, they could instead have been trying to find out what they needed to do increase the awareness of the existing one.  So a survey revealed that 36% of people did not recognise the brand. CRT response seems to be ' it's not our fault it's a lousy brand so lets change it'.  Those who are complaining may well share my view that if you are responsible for something, you are responsible, and the sensible thing would have been to examine the marketing strategy.  For instance - can anyone ever recall seeing a TV advert - in fact, when can anyone remember ever seeing the logo out of context, by which I mean, not close to the waterways.  The marketing strategy appears to be let's preach to the converted and hope the rest of the country who do not live near a canal or navigable river somehow, through osmosis, know who we are and what we do. 

 

he brand and logo do not belong to management, it belongs to us - in the sense that it is the public who are asked to support the waterways, and to do that we need to be able to identify with it.  If you google 'cost of change' there are dozens of scholarly papers and articles that make it clear, change is never cost neutral - and it is nearly always not just a  direct financial cost.  Goodwill is worth money too.

 

If anyone can be bothered, can they ask CRT how many people complained to them in the last 12 months about the existing logo? 

  • Greenie 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tanglewood said:

As usual, it appears that CRT are responding to the wrong message.  This somewhat churlish comment suggests they are cross that some people have assumed that there will be costs involved - how dare we? 

 

More accurately, their churlish opening comment seems to project anger at an unnamed source claiming the cost is £2.5m, a figure apparently believed by the complainants.

 

Might that be Narrowboat World? Or someone with more credibility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tanglewood said:

Those who are complaining may well share my view that if you are responsible for something, you are responsible, and the sensible thing would have been to examine the marketing strategy.

That's the proper thing to do.

 

With their new 'offering' it could end up going from bad to worse and even fewer will recognise the 'brand'.

Without a MAJOR advertising campaign (which will cost £££££££s) how will they get the message over ?

 

You are correct when you say 'you never see the C&RT brand out of context' (that's within about 10 feet of the waterway) - how do they expect the 8 million people that live within a km of the waterway to find out about them ?

 

I think many boaters will be taking the view that C&RTs are thinking "the ship is sinking - what shall we do" and instead of baling it out, they intend to run around shouting "this is what we stand for".

 

I well remember a very skilled and well known 'Business Rescue' expert telling me that one of the first signs of a business in trouble is that they will paint the toilets - maybe this is C&RTs version.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I think many boaters will be taking the view that C&RTs are thinking "the ship is sinking - what shall we do" and instead of baling it out, they intend to run around shouting "this is what we stand for".

 

 

I suspect it might be more accurate to say on the limited budget they have, there is nothing much they can do to halt a slow degeneration into decrepitude. Fundraising was the Big Hope when CRT was launched but has failed abysmally, and improvements in efficiency are just fiddling around the edges of the insurmountable problem. So all the top brass can really do is gracefully manage the decline and try to look as though they are doing something constructive while the organisation is starved of money and loaded up with ever more expensive environmental obligations. 

 

They will never admit this publicly but I bet privately their goal is simply to keep the wheels on the bus for as long as possible and keep on taking the substantial salaries. 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

On the gas company front, it appears to have escaped you that five years ago Transco seemed to disappear and became "National Grid Gas"!

It had obviously escaped me, but no longer :) My wonder is as to why the name changes? It usually indicates that something has gone wrong and they are looking to disassociate the company with the old name... so why the change from Transco to National Grid Gas? I don’t recall seeing vans with “National Grid Gas” plastered all over them.

 

It seems that the latest name change is due to some kind of takeover by foreign owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Richard10002 said:

It usually indicates that something has gone wrong and they are looking to disassociate the company with the old name... so why the change from Transco to National Grid Gas?

 

I expect it was because over 8m people live within 1km of a gas main and none of them have a clue who Transco are.

 

:giggles:

  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I expect it was because over 8m people live within 1km of a gas main and none of them have a clue who Transco are.

 

:giggles:

I see what you are saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Tanglewood said:

So a survey revealed that 36% of people did not recognise the brand. CRT response seems to be ' it's not our fault it's a lousy brand so lets change it'.  

Have had a lovely day in the sunshine - but just realised I mis-reported this and I need to apologise - its 64% who don't recognise the logo, or don't know what CRT do.  I stand by the rest as I knew what the figures were, just made a mistake when I reported them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As part of our work to reposition the trust we will be launching a revitalised brand on May 22nd"

 

What planet are these people on? 

If this revitalised brand brings in 1 extra penny I will eat my boat. Looking at the CRT Facebook page I suggest it will cost CRT with several comments suggesting people will cancel their contributions because of this stupid re-branding exercise..

Our boat club are writing to CRT to complain it's a waste of resources. I suggest we all let CRT know what a load of crap this is and make a concerted effort to get them to stop now before they go any further. WE LIKE THE SWAN!

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Midnight said:

"As part of our work to reposition the trust we will be launching a revitalised brand on May 22nd"

 

What planet are these people on? 

If this revitalised brand brings in 1 extra penny I will eat my boat. Looking at the CRT Facebook page I suggest it will cost CRT with several comments suggesting people will cancel their contributions because of this stupid re-branding exercise..

Our boat club are writing to CRT to complain it's a waste of resources. I suggest we all let CRT know what a load of crap this is and make a concerted effort to get them to stop now before they go any further. WE LIKE THE SWAN!

If they are launching on May 22nd, the money is spent, and a whole variety of consultants will have been paid a lot of money to reach this point, as well as orders made for signs, signwriting of vans, uniforms, and so on.

 

A shame really... it's tantamount to admitting that the initial branding was a failure, (which I dont think it was), and all of the money could have been spent on awareness and encouraging people to visit the canals and donate to their upkeep.

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I suspect it might be more accurate to say on the limited budget they have, there is nothing much they can do to halt a slow degeneration into decrepitude.//

They will never admit this publicly but I bet privately their goal is simply to keep the wheels on the bus for as long as possible and keep on taking the substantial salaries. 

Judging by this year so far, with both the main northern rings out of action for the forseeable future, I can't see how anyone can argue with that.  I suspect their rebranding will move the focus further from engined boats and more towards other leisure activities and conservation. I don't think they expect to bring in any more money and without it there's no way an ancient system like ours can survive as a navigation for that much longer.

The problems at Marple and Middlewich (and a few years back when Northwich got flooded) might well have been prevented with staff on the ground and proper maintenance, but there just isn't any of that any more. It's not just us, everything in the country is now run on a last minute, minimum outlay and disaster management regime.

Me, I'm just glad for the last thirty years and the next few till I'm too old to climb lock ladders any more.

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

If they are launching on May 22nd, the money is spent, and a whole variety of consultants will have been paid a lot of money to reach this point, as well as orders made for signs, signwriting of vans, uniforms, and so on.

But the collateral damage has not yet occurred, which will be confusion and even more frustration  - instead of spending all their time from May 22 telling people about the new logo, and finding they are answering the same 'why' question over and over, they could actually focus on getting the 35,000 potential roving ambassadors on board (pun intended).  I'd be delighted to say 'you know what CRT actually listen'.  It would be good if we could get this decision reversed. 

 

Protest all you like CRT we all know there is only one pot of money - I know from working in a local authority that come the turn of the year if you hadn't spent your budget it could get subsumed into somebody else's pot,  (usually highways) so of course you spent it and often not wisely. Why, if you had money available didn't you spend it promoting the Trust, instead of messing about with logos - what will happen to the stock of existing uniforms - will they be flogged off - what about the existing stock of vinyl stickies that you cannot now use.   You cannot claim this was money from an existing budget and then use it for something which was not actually a budget heading - or perhaps 'redesign and relaunch the brand ' is a budget heading every year? 

 

 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said "Tanglewood". Waste on waste on waste.

 

British Waterways was a pet to hate but at least it contained people who knew what the job was about, even if they dragged their feet and were slow they had "the knowledge".

What is there of that today? Its doubtful if anybody could draw a map of what they look after! (That's assuming they could draw!).

 

 

Edited by Laurence Hogg
add info
  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tanglewood said:

I know from working in a local authority that come the turn of the year if you hadn't spent your budget it could get subsumed into somebody else's pot,  (usually highways) so of course you spent it and often not wisely

 

Private companies ceased this practice (well those that had adopted this stupid method of encouraging spend, even when not required) at least 30 years ago.

 

Only local authorities, Civil Service, NHS and Police use it now as far as I am aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/05/2018 at 08:53, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I suspect it might be more accurate to say on the limited budget they have, there is nothing much they can do to halt a slow degeneration into decrepitude. Fundraising was the Big Hope when CRT was launched but has failed abysmally, and improvements in efficiency are just fiddling around the edges of the insurmountable problem. So all the top brass can really do is gracefully manage the decline and try to look as though they are doing something constructive while the organisation is starved of money and loaded up ,with ever more expensive environmental obligations. 

 

They will never admit this publicly but I bet privately their goal is simply to keep the wheels on the bus for as long as possible and keep on taking the substantial salaries. 

And then pivot the organisation in to becoming a property development company, which will also go bust, but gives them a few more years of megabucks salaries and bonuses.

 

Jen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

And then pivot the organisation in to becoming a property development company, which will also go bust, but gives them a few more years of megabucks salaries and bonuses.

 

Jen

They have already (at least twice) 'come a cropper' and lost millions in 'property speculation'.

 

The development of Gloucester Quays was partly funded by British Waterways, but the building industry took a downturn, with British Waterways writing-off £33 millions as the development collapsed with the many units already built having no interest.

Then there was the decision to go into pubs, buying into many canal side pubs, again when the industry was on a downturn, this time the losses amounting to £22 millions that again was written off.

 

The Marketeer Ansoff explained it well with his 'matrix' which basically suggests 'stick with what you know about - moving into markets where you have no expertise or experience is high risk'

https://www.tutor2u.net/business/reference/ansoffs-matrix

 

From Ansoff :

 

Diversification

Diversification is the name given to the growth strategy where a business markets new products in new markets.

This is an inherently more risk strategy because the business is moving into markets in which it has little or no experience.

For a business to adopt a diversification strategy, therefore, it must have a clear idea about what it expects to gain from the strategy and an honest assessment of the risks. However, for the right balance between risk and reward, a marketing strategy of diversification can be highly rewarding.

 

 

With hindsight - and maybe even a little thought - that £55m would have been better spent on maintenance.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marinas too. They are now trying to sell off BWML, which has been a drain on finances. You would think they could get marinas right with all the moorings they run. BW/CaRT do seem to have an uncanny knack for diversifying in to property and loosely related businesses right at the top of the market, just before a downturn. Quiet spooky it is.

Jen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Tanglewood said:

..................'.  It would be good if we could get this decision reversed................

 

 

 

I think a lot of boaters would support that - maybe starting with a protest at Crick when they launch it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/05/2018 at 08:40, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I think many boaters will be taking the view that C&RTs are thinking "the ship is sinking - what shall we do" and instead of baling it out, they intend to run around shouting "this is what we stand for".

 

Even if the ship is sinking - most of CRT are not bothered - it is not their problem - the leak is at the other end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Midnight said:

I think a lot of boaters would support that - maybe starting with a protest at Crick when they launch it.

Something like this perhaps?

 

No.pdf

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tanglewood said:

Something like this perhaps?

 

No.pdf

Love it!
Regrettably we are on holiday on the L&L on Crick weekend or I would be on the Vistaprint website now ordering the tee-shirts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.