A Message from Richard Parry to Boaters

[Alan de Enfield]

1/6/18

 

Boating and our new brand – a message from chief exec Richard Parry

Ten days ago we launched the Trust’s new branding, as we highlight the Trust’s role in providing greater wellbeing for the millions of people whose lives could be improved by coming to the waterways, right on their doorstep.  The reasons for the changes are explained elsewhere in this Update, but I know from conversations I’ve had, and commentary that I’ve seen, that some boaters felt our message last week ignored the core purpose of the canal and river navigations – that is, for boats to use. 

The assurance I want to give you is that boats and boaters will always be at the heart of what the Trust is for, and central to what we do – the majority of our annual expenditure (well over £100m per annum) goes into keeping the waterways operational and safe for boats to use and boaters to enjoy.  I am committed to active ongoing communication with you at all levels to hear your feedback about where we need to target our efforts, to deal with any issues you encounter and deliver the boating experience you expect.  

So my plea would be not to take offence – as I know most of you don’t – when our message isn’t specifically about boating; it really is in everyone’s interest that we seek to address and engage a wider and different audience – including critically those who are younger, more diverse, and digitally-active   But I don’t discount the importance of ensuring that we continue to garner your support as well. To be fit for the future, the Trust needs to change, but boats and boaters need to be with us on that journey, and we will keep working to achieve that.

Richard Parry

Chief Executive, Canal & River Trust

[Guest]

Well I suppose he has acknowledged the 're branding' exercise might have peed some boaters off....

[nicknorman]

”well he would say that”. But even so, I don’t share the view that CRT are abandoning boaters. It goes with the territory of government subsidies / paid by the taxpayer that the general public have to be courted. If boaters contributed all funding required to maintain the system it would be a different matter. But they don’t!

[David Mack]

Yes a shame that this has come as an afterthought. I think the boaters' reaction was entirely predictable, and it would surely have been better if this message has been incorporated into the original rebranding information.

[john6767]

Just read it in the boaters update, I thought it was OK to be honest, and I do get the bigger picture, just not a big fan of some of the rebranding like to wholesale replacement of all the signs immediately.

[Clodi]

Let's face it we  need the public's support it's not a case of us and them..

[alan_fincher]

The issue I have with the re-branding as I'm seeing it is this.....................

 

I am prepared to accept, as a "non marketing" person that where signs are aimed at the general public, whether informational or actively "selling" CRT that the expense may be worthwhile and bring returns in terms of greater public awareness.

 

What I simply can't see any justification for is replacing large numbers of signs that can only be of interest to boaters, such as those for mooring restrictions, sanitary stations, water points, rubbish facilities and the like.  Perfectly good signs with the old logo are already being taken down and replaced by identically worded ones in blue with the new logo.

 

Boaters on CRT waters are already well aware of CRT, so in my view nothing is being achieved with boaters other than "that looks like a waste of money".
 

Please tell me how replacing (say) a 2 day mooring restriction sign in (say) Stoke Bruerne with one that just happens to be blue, and have a new logo on is achieving anything with the public at large.
 

I really can't see it, and it seems to me a huge swathe of boaters feel exactly the same.

 

I think this is a major cock up at a time they are looking for donations to help with major failures of the infrastructure.  I certainly wouldm't donate money whilst they are (in my view at least) wasting it in large amounts.

 

 

[Nightwatch]

Alan, well put and I agree. I think I recall that there was meant that thought, including yours truly, that the change from BW to CRT was a bit controversial and the CRT bit was naff. It's still going to be CRT but with a changed logo. Like the Enterprise Car Rental ads on telly, "This doesn't make sense!"

[Guest]

2 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

The issue I have with the re-branding as I'm seeing it is this.....................

 

I am prepared to accept, as a "non marketing" person that where signs are aimed at the general public, whether informational or actively "selling" CRT that the expense may be worthwhile and bring returns in terms of greater public awareness.

 

What I simply can't see any justification for is replacing large numbers of signs that can only be of interest to boaters, such as those for mooring restrictions, sanitary stations, water points, rubbish facilities and the like.  Perfectly good signs with the old logo are already being taken down and replaced by identically worded ones in blue with the new logo.

 

Boaters on CRT waters are already well aware of CRT, so in my view nothing is being achieved with boaters other than "that looks like a waste of money".
 

Please tell me how replacing (say) a 2 day mooring restriction sign in (say) Stoke Bruerne with one that just happens to be blue, and have a new logo on is achieving anything with the public at large.
 

I really can't see it, and it seems to me a huge swathe of boaters feel exactly the same.

 

I think this is a major cock up at a time they are looking for donations to help with major failures of the infrastructure.  I certainly wouldm't donate money whilst they are (in my view at least) wasting it in large amounts.

 

 

 

Except that a 'proper' rebranding exercise cannot only be done in part, it has to encompass the whole.

 

Think about any supermarket you visit, the 'brand' is everywhere, staff uniforms, all the signage, the own products, displays etc etc.

 

CRT are trying to replicate that (as mad as it seems.)

 

 

[matty40s]

16 minutes ago, MJG said:

 

Except that a 'proper' rebranding exercise cannot only be done in part, it has to encompass the whole.

 

Think about any supermarket you visit, the 'brand' is everywhere, staff uniforms, all the signage, the own products, displays etc etc.

 

CRT are trying to replicate that (as mad as it seems.)

 

 

so why was the chugger in Birmingham wearing the old logo fleece 4 days after the new signage was put up where the chuggers have been chugging for the last 3 years at the top of farmers bridge locks. I dont mean just one sign, the whole lot, noticeboards, signposts and others. They could have kept the black information boards with perspex windows and just rebranded with a blue sticker, but no, they took the old one away and stuck a new shiny blue one there, and stuck the old out of date information notices out of the old one in the new one.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, matty40s said:

so why was the chugger in Birmingham wearing the old logo fleece 4 days after the new signage was put up where the chuggers have been chugging for the last 3 years at the top of farmers bridge locks. I dont mean just one sign, the whole lot, noticeboards, signposts and others. They could have kept the black information boards with perspex windows and just rebranded with a blue sticker, but no, they took the old one away and stuck a new shiny blue one there, and stuck the old out of date information notices out of the old one in the new one.

I don't know, but for the avoidance of doubt I think the whole thing is a cock up.

 

Said it a lot on here.

[Grassman]

 

What I can't understand is that they wanted a new logo so as to help the general public become more aware of what CRT are all about, but produce a logo which doesn't.

 

Granted the bridge and ripples is quite clever and modern looking but I doubt many people would identify what it means. The canal bridge logo was more recognisable as a canal bridge even if folk didn't suss the clever swan shape to it.

 

A complete and utter waste of money in my opinion.

[magictime]

12 hours ago, David Mack said:

Yes a shame that this has come as an afterthought. I think the boaters' reaction was entirely predictable, and it would surely have been better if this message has been incorporated into the original rebranding information.

To be fair, it might not have been easy to incorporate a strong enough message about boating to satisfy boaters, without 'watering down' the more general message aimed at the general public. Maybe a simultaneous message to license-paying boaters, putting the re-branding in context, would have been advisable.

[MtB]

21 minutes ago, Grassman said:

What I can't understand is that they wanted a new logo so as to help the general public become more aware of what CRT are all about, but produce a logo which doesn't.

 

 

Where it went wrong is their misrepresentation of the mahoosive spend on this rebranding exercise, with the blatant and insulting lie that it cost only £60k. 

 

General opinion is that the bill for the logo and new colour scheme from the marketing agency may well have been £60k, but the roll out of all the new signage, uniforms etc. is probably costing closer to £1m in my personal opinion. It would be nice to have some honesty from them about the real cost of the re-branding exercise but I suspect the true cost is so high they prefer to take the criticism than actually publish accurate figures. 

[Rob-M]

Boating through Birmingham I thought the new blue signage stood out a lot more than the previous black and white signs so I presume more likely that passers by will notice them. They also looked modern not like some old relic from the past.

[LadyG]

8 hours ago, MJG said:

 

Except that a 'proper' rebranding exercise cannot only be done in part, it has to encompass the whole.

 

Think about any supermarket you visit, the 'brand' is everywhere, staff uniforms, all the signage, the own products, displays etc etc.

 

CRT are trying to replicate that (as mad as it seems.)

 

 

Well then. who was it that declared signage would be replaced as needed? I thought this was promulgated by CRT,  but turns out to be untrue. Not  only the cost of signage [presumably lots of signs are sitting in a storeroom], there is the labour which would otherwise be doing useful maintenance.  

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, LadyG said:

there is the labour which would otherwise be doing useful maintenance.

He rides into town astride a mule
Pity the poor deluded fool
And if they should reject you
You know i'll still respect you
When they're playing it cool
So unspeakably cruel
Good luck you crazy fool
You Poor Deluded Fool
You Poor Deluded Fool
You Poor Deluded Fool
You Poor Deluded Fool
You Poor Deluded Fool

[Neil2]

I don't know who Richard Parry has been talking to, or what he's been reading, but he's missed the point entirely with this ill thought out message.  The old cliche about when you're in a hole stop digging springs to mind.

 

I think most boaters would agree that it's not that the so called rebranding exercise appears to ignore the core purpose of the waterways, it's that it's a clear waste of a substantial amount of money, based on an extremely dodgy premise.

 

The 6 page Simetrica report that CRT laughingly refer to as "New Independent Research" is so bad that it's only useful purpose would be as an example to teach research students how not to do it.  It would be interesting to know how much this report cost, but I suspect when we find out there will be a new wave of outrage. 

 

 

[MtB]

15 minutes ago, Neil2 said:

It would be interesting to know how much this report cost, but I suspect when we find out there will be a new wave of outrage. 

 

£60k would be my prediction.

[Alan de Enfield]

How is this new 'brand' to be communicated to the target market ?

 

If the x million people who live near a canal are not already 'using' the canal then how will they see all of the new signage ?

 

How is the message going to reach them ?

 

Mailing addresses can be purchased by region - maybe C&RT are going to buy 100,000 addresses as a test-area and mail 'all of these wonderful benefits' - in marketing terms a response of 1% would be a good result. How will it be monitored ?

 

Are C&RT going to set up a 'road-show' and take it to every town / village centre / shopping mall near a canal and actively present C&RT, the canals and the well-being benefits ?

 

Are C&RT going to undertake 'sponsorship' of some outdoorsy type TV programmes ? (How will the reponses be monitored)

 

Are C&RT going to do some paid TV / Billboard advertising (How will the reponses be monitored)

 

It is all simple Marketing stuff which I am sure that the C&RT Marketing team have thoroughly thought thru' - the problem is we do not know what their plans are so can only comment on the knowledge we have. I sure (for example) they all remember that John Wanamaker (1838-1922), department-store magnate, once said, “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is, I don't know which half.”

 

C'mon C&RT, you say you 'listen and want to talk'. There is a huge resource out there called boaters why not ask them to help and support you instead of ignoring them. There are even a few who have many years industrial and commercial Marketing experience and have gone thru 'brand changes' , and 'brand launches'. Why turn your back on that knowledge ?

[john6767]

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

Well then. who was it that declared signage would be replaced as needed? I thought this was promulgated by CRT,  but turns out to be untrue. Not  only the cost of signage [presumably lots of signs are sitting in a storeroom], there is the labour which would otherwise be doing useful maintenance.  

In the centre of Birmingham the signs, and there are a lot of signs, were being replaced by volunteers.

[David Mack]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Mailing addresses can be purchased by region - maybe C&RT are going to buy 100,000 addresses as a test-area and mail 'all of these wonderful benefits' - in marketing terms a response of 1% would be a good result. How will it be monitored ?

 

Only if they can show that the occupant of every one of those 100,000 mailing addresses has given explicit consent to receive such mailings.

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

Only if they can show that the occupant of every one of those 100,000 mailing addresses has given explicit consent to receive such mailings.

We used to do it all the time - I realise that legislation has changed in the last few years, but, having just looked, it is still possible to buy 'mailing lists', or you just supply you mail-shot and the company stuffs and posts them on your behalf.

 

Just looking at one of my old suppliers they still offer consumer oriented lists covering the following characteristics :

 

Mail order buyers
Regular charity donors
Home owners
Magazine readership
Gender
Employment status
Age bracket
Income bracket
Home owners
Region

 

So I guess that these are all 'explicit consent' names and addresses.

[mrsmelly]

1 hour ago, Rob-M said:

Boating through Birmingham I thought the new blue signage stood out a lot more than the previous black and white signs so I presume more likely that passers by will notice them. They also looked modern not like some old relic from the past.

" Some old relic from the past? " Yes we need to get rid of any old relics from the past dont we? Only everything modern should survive? Lets for instance get rid of those old relic Heritage working boats etc?

[MtB]

1 minute ago, mrsmelly said:

" Some old relic from the past? " Yes we need to get rid of any old relics from the past dont we? Only everything modern should survive? Lets for instance get rid of those old relic Heritage working boats etc?

 

Get rid of the canals too, obviously. They are relics from the past, aren’t they?