A Message from Richard Parry to Boaters

[X Alan W]

I don't suppose it will ever come to pass but when C&Rt stop trying to be all things to all people & concentrate on the job they are tasked with ( the upkeep of the waterways) & stop pandering to multiple other groups that have little interest & contribute nil or very little to the pot & put the up keep to enable the least trouble free boating with minimum stoppages it would be great (but cant see it happening ) BW went downhill & C&RT have continued at a faster rate

[Jennifer McM]

4 minutes ago, X Alan W said:

I don't suppose it will ever come to pass but when C&Rt stop trying to be all things to all people & concentrate on the job they are tasked with ( the upkeep of the waterways) & stop pandering to multiple other groups that have little interest & contribute nil or very little to the pot & put the up keep to enable the least trouble free boating with minimum stoppages it would be great (but cant see it happening ) BW went downhill & C&RT have continued at a faster rate

Believe they are trying to be 'all things' to everyone to obtain as many grants from authorities as possible, ie sports, heritage, National Trust... the list of 'money pots' must be endless

[rgreg]

7 minutes ago, Jennifer McM said:

Believe they are trying to be 'all things' to everyone to obtain as many grants from authorities as possible, ie sports, heritage, National Trust... the list of 'money pots' must be endless

...and probably necessary for the network's survival. 

[alan_fincher]

2 hours ago, Rob-M said:

Maybe this is t highlight that it is a boaters rubbish facility and not for general public use where they can't be ar@#d to visit their local recycling center.

 

In which case, perhaps spend some money putting a lockable gate on the facilities?

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

In which case, perhaps spend some money putting a lockable gate on the facilities?

 

A gate on it would be a major improvement with or without a lock.

[Neil2]

3 hours ago, Jennifer McM said:

Believe they are trying to be 'all things' to everyone to obtain as many grants from authorities as possible, ie sports, heritage, National Trust... the list of 'money pots' must be endless

 

3 hours ago, rgreg said:

...and probably necessary for the network's survival. 

 

The problem is how to persuade individuals or organisations to part with their money.  It will cut no ice whatsoever if, when someone asks the question "what do I get for my money", you refer them to a piece of nonsense dressed up a a serious research project.  Yet this is exactly what CRT are doing.

 

 

 

 

[adam1uk]

48 minutes ago, Neil2 said:

 

 

The problem is how to persuade individuals or organisations to part with their money.  It will cut no ice whatsoever if, when someone asks the question "what do I get for my money", you refer them to a piece of nonsense dressed up a a serious research project.  Yet this is exactly what CRT are doing.

 

 

 

 

Again, it’s not really aimed at individuals. It’s so CRT can say to the government that the £50miion a year grant provides facilities used by x million people — and should continue. 

[Captain Pegg]

Go back in time 70 years and you will find the most hated change of 'branding' in the history of canals when the newly nationalised long distance fleets were repainted in the ubiquitous blue and yellow livery of British Waterways. It was disliked because it was a change from the different and vibrant liveries of the previous companies and forced a corporate uniformity on the boaters.

 

Yet 70 years later go to a historic boat festival and you will find that livery immaculately applied to any number of ex-working boats. I suspect the reason being is that it is the livery that most of those owning such boats remember the boats wearing. I have an affection for the metallic embossed BWB signs because they remind me of my earliest experiences of canals 40 odd years ago.

 

On the other hand I don't particularly like the strap lines that come with modern branding; that's because it's a bit alien to me. It won't be to those a generation (or maybe even a half generation) younger than me.

 

If this particular brand remains in place long enough there will one day be a middle aged boater who will fondly remember it when their memory is jogged by seeing one of the now new signs that has escaped a future rebrand (that will surely come). The reason will be is that it is symbolic of the canals as they were when that boater first formed their interest in canals and boats, possibly on a childhood hire boat holiday. In the same way I delight in seeing the one of the very few old embossed metallic BWB signs that have escaped at least two rebrands since they were current. In their day I suspect many boaters hated those too.

 

JP

[Victor Vectis]

6 hours ago, Batavia said:

Also, in Berkhamsted, the signs by the winding hole have been replaced (not before time, as the previous ones were more or less illegible) but the new ones are not easy to interpret, as the "totem-ettes" are not in a logical vertical sequence!  The ambiguity will doubtless be appreciated by those who choose to moor in the winding hole.

 

Chris G

I wouldn't care less what logo a sign a Berko had as long as it said "No widebeams north of this point"

[Tanglewood]

5 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Go back in time 70 years and you will find the most hated change of 'branding' in the history of canals when the newly nationalised long distance fleets were repainted in the ubiquitous blue and yellow livery of British Waterways. It was disliked because it was a change from the different and vibrant liveries of the previous companies and forced a corporate uniformity on the boaters.

 

Yet 70 years later go to a historic boat festival and you will find that livery immaculately applied to any number of ex-working boats. I suspect the reason being is that it is the livery that most of those owning such boats remember the boats wearing. I have an affection for the metallic embossed BWB signs because they remind me of my earliest experiences of canals 40 odd years ago.

 

On the other hand I don't particularly like the strap lines that come with modern branding; that's because it's a bit alien to me. It won't be to those a generation (or maybe even a half generation) younger than me.

 

If this particular brand remains in place long enough there will one day be a middle aged boater who will fondly remember it when their memory is jogged by seeing one of the now new signs that has escaped a future rebrand (that will surely come). The reason will be is that it is symbolic of the canals as they were when that boater first formed their interest in canals and boats, possibly on a childhood hire boat holiday. In the same way I delight in seeing the one of the very few old embossed metallic BWB signs that have escaped at least two rebrands since they were current. In their day I suspect many boaters hated those too.

 

JP

All you say is true. However, this argument and Parry's lament about being misunderstood is nothing to do with the fact that generally people do not like change, and all to do with the timing and justification for the change.  The nation probably does have to decide whether it wants the waterways to preserve and celebrate what is left of a previous industrial age, or whether it wants to create a network of linear parks. CRT seem to be suggesting you can do both, by keeping 19th century lock mechanisms ( of course a number of these are listed structures and fortunately cannot be altered without permission) and littering the place with 21st Century banners and signs, reminding people that life is better by water. 

 

There has now been almost a month's worth of comment on here about the rebranding exercise, and from the beginning it is clear that the objection is not to change - but to:

 

1. The actual reason for the re-brand - i.e. the fact that only 36% of those surveyed realised that CRT, as symbolised by the swan and bridge was about more than preserving and maintaining the waterways for perpetuity. (In fact CRT wants to improve the health and well-being of the population) In other words what we all believed was the desired outcome when the Trust was formed, has been relegated to a strategy to achieve a different outcome.

2. The 'misleading' information about the costs of the re-brand (60k) from an existing budget) - 

3. The timing.  The country is told even day how fragile our economy is, how there is not enough money for anything, CRT demonstrate there isn't enough money for routine maintenance - Lock gates are falling apart, so locks are leaking, but in the face of all this, money can be found for flashy and unnecessary schemes promotions.  

3.The 'misleading' information that the new brand would be launched, then rolled out in an evolutionary fashion, with signs that were old and decrepit replaced first, whereas in fact the new brand is in your face and out of place with electric blue shouting, 'Look at me'.  Remember when Alan Titchmarsh convinced everyone to buy decking for their gardens and paint their sheds blue?  Just because it's new doesn't make it desirable or right

4. The fact that the boating community have felt completely sidelined by this re-branding, and a pathetic open letter where the subliminal message, carefully crafted is that Boaters are so embedded in Waterways that you almost don't need to draw attention to that.  

5 ...and finally the new logo and colour way, which is just awful.  

It's not to do with change - or nostalgia - most of us will improve our boats to make them easier to handle or enjoy - hot-water systems, inverters, TVs mobile phones - it's all to do with honesty, integrity and good design which is fit for purpose.  

 

[MtB]

1 hour ago, adam1uk said:

Again, it’s not really aimed at individuals. It’s so CRT can say to the government that the £50miion a year grant provides facilities used by x million people — and should continue. 

 

Sums it up very nicely. Very succinct. 

 

This point seems to fly over the heads of most people commenting on how the new branding is a waste of money. 

 

My own dissatisfaction with the new branding centres on the lie being peddled that it is costing only £60k.

 

Greenied.

[Captain Pegg]

38 minutes ago, Tanglewood said:

All you say is true. However, this argument and Parry's lament about being misunderstood is nothing to do with the fact that generally people do not like change, and all to do with the timing and justification for the change.  The nation probably does have to decide whether it wants the waterways to preserve and celebrate what is left of a previous industrial age, or whether it wants to create a network of linear parks. CRT seem to be suggesting you can do both, by keeping 19th century lock mechanisms ( of course a number of these are listed structures and fortunately cannot be altered without permission) and littering the place with 21st Century banners and signs, reminding people that life is better by water. 

 

There has now been almost a month's worth of comment on here about the rebranding exercise, and from the beginning it is clear that the objection is not to change - but to:

 

1. The actual reason for the re-brand - i.e. the fact that only 36% of those surveyed realised that CRT, as symbolised by the swan and bridge was about more than preserving and maintaining the waterways for perpetuity. (In fact CRT wants to improve the health and well-being of the population) In other words what we all believed was the desired outcome when the Trust was formed, has been relegated to a strategy to achieve a different outcome.

2. The 'misleading' information about the costs of the re-brand (60k) from an existing budget) - 

3. The timing.  The country is told even day how fragile our economy is, how there is not enough money for anything, CRT demonstrate there isn't enough money for routine maintenance - Lock gates are falling apart, so locks are leaking, but in the face of all this, money can be found for flashy and unnecessary schemes promotions.  

3.The 'misleading' information that the new brand would be launched, then rolled out in an evolutionary fashion, with signs that were old and decrepit replaced first, whereas in fact the new brand is in your face and out of place with electric blue shouting, 'Look at me'.  Remember when Alan Titchmarsh convinced everyone to buy decking for their gardens and paint their sheds blue?  Just because it's new doesn't make it desirable or right

4. The fact that the boating community have felt completely sidelined by this re-branding, and a pathetic open letter where the subliminal message, carefully crafted is that Boaters are so embedded in Waterways that you almost don't need to draw attention to that.  

5 ...and finally the new logo and colour way, which is just awful.  

It's not to do with change - or nostalgia - most of us will improve our boats to make them easier to handle or enjoy - hot-water systems, inverters, TVs mobile phones - it's all to do with honesty, integrity and good design which is fit for purpose.  

 

1. The two objectives aren't mutually exclusive. Also bear in mind CRT is the creation of a Government that places a far greater emphasis on cost to the taxpayer than on value to society when setting it's policies and budgets. Government funds alone won't subsidise canals in the current environment. CRT has to broaden its appeal for better or worse.

 

2. I understood the £60k to be the design fee for the artwork, not the cost of implementation.

 

3. Funds can't all be put in one basket. I haven't experienced problems with lock gates - and I use plenty of them. Inspection of gates replaced during the past winter near me doesn't show those replaced to be close to failure. However the stoppages at Middelwich, Marple and now Bloxwich are a concern if it becomes a trend.

 

3. I didn't particularly comment on whether it was desirable or right, I suggested it fulfilled the aims of it's sponsor. The colour is more distinctive but it isn't the first time blue has been used as the corporate colour of the waterways. It doesn't look shouty to my eye either.

 

4. I don't feel sidelined, I don't feel the need to be constantly recognised by CRT and canals have long been a shared entity with walkers, anglers and even cyclists. I do genuinely believe that Mr Parry understands the role of boats in his wider remit. That's based upon meeting and listening to him on a few occasions.

 

5. I don't agree. I can't get that excited about it to be massively bothered. The design doesn't affect my ability to go boating.

 

JP

[Pluto]

3 hours ago, adam1uk said:

Again, it’s not really aimed at individuals. It’s so CRT can say to the government that the £50miion a year grant provides facilities used by x million people — and should continue. 

I have pointed out to Richard Parry that one important factor in why we have a waterway system today is that in the 1960s a number of waterway groups and individuals were prepared to stand up to a government which was looking to close down the whole system. Another reason was that they suddenly realised that they couldn't close the system without improving the land drainage provided by canals and navigations, the cost of which was more that the short-term cost of maintaining the system. Most politicians only look to the short term and like to have a nice quiet time, so the more people who write to them complaining, the more notice they take.

[Neil2]

3 hours ago, adam1uk said:

Again, it’s not really aimed at individuals. It’s so CRT can say to the government that the £50miion a year grant provides facilities used by x million people — and should continue. 

On what evidence do you base that conclusion?  

[adam1uk]

42 minutes ago, Neil2 said:

On what evidence do you base that conclusion?  

There are these notes made by Andy Tidy from the National Users Forum, and if you ask Richard Parry he'll tell you, as this post in another thread demonstrates.

[Alan de Enfield]

50 minutes ago, Neil2 said:

On what evidence do you base that conclusion?  

In order to retain the DEFRA grant C&RT have to meet (or exceed) several targets each year, in brief, these are :

 

Network Stewardship Score ( a measure of waterways functionality and public benefit)

Safety (the number of reported injuries).

The percentage of waterways in class D & E (not to exceed 25%)*

Towpaths (the number of visits to increase year on year - hence the current ridiculous number of 460,000,000) 

Towpaths - (number of closures caused by asset or infrastructure failure)

Towpaths in condition A to C (not to fall below 60%)*

 

and so on and so on ……………..

 

In addition to the 'compulsory' elements,which need to be met to continue receipt of the grant, there are some discretionary (conditional) elements which gives another £10m

 

The Publication Data items denoted with an * comprise the Relevant Standards for the purpose of the conditional element of the
Defra Grant. The information in the table above demonstrates that the Relevant Standards have been met for the period to 31
March 2017 and accordingly the Trust will apply for payment of the conditional portion of the Defra Grant funding for the year
ending 31 March 2018 which comprises £10m

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[adam1uk]

18 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

In order to retain the DEFRA grant C&RT have to meet (or exceed) several targets each year, in brief, these are :

 

Network Stewardship Score ( a measure of waterways functionality and public benefit)

Safety (the number of reported injuries).

The percentage of waterways in class D & E (not to exceed 25%)*

Towpaths (the number of visits to increase year on year - hence the current ridiculous number of 460,000,000) 

Towpaths - (number of closures caused by asset or infrastructure failure)

Towpaths in condition A to C (not to fall below 60%)*

 

and so on and so on ……………..

 

In addition to the 'compulsory' elements,which need to be met to continue receipt of the grant, there are some discretionary (conditional) elements which gives another £10m

 

The Publication Data items denoted with an * comprise the Relevant Standards for the purpose of the conditional element of the
Defra Grant. The information in the table above demonstrates that the Relevant Standards have been met for the period to 31
March 2017 and accordingly the Trust will apply for payment of the conditional portion of the Defra Grant funding for the year
ending 31 March 2018 which comprises £10m

And that's just the current grant -- what they're worried about is what happens when the current 15 year agreement runs out.  There's no guarantee of any government funding after that.

[Ray T]

Of interest?

 

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/grants-and-funding

 

Grant income is an important component of our overall income profile. In 2016/17 we received approximately £17m from a wide range of statutory funders.

Grants support all aspects of our work, whether it is building new woodland and countryside cycle trails at some of your favourite places or enabling us to undertake essential nature conservation work along our coastlines.

Grants also help us to conserve, protect and provide access to coast, countryside, historic homes and gardens, whether through giving people the opportunity to join in with our work, helping us reach new audiences or enabling people to have a more fulfilling and enjoyable visit.

The National Lottery (Heritage Lottery Fund, Big Lottery Fund, Sport England and the Arts Council), the Landfill Communities Fund, European grants such as Structural Funds, Interreg and  LIFE, and central and local government are some of our most significant sources of grants. These grants often enable the Trust to work in partnership with other organisations and charities to achieve objectives that go well beyond what we could achieve on our own.

We are always grateful for the support from our grant funders as without it we wouldn’t be able to undertake some of our most important and innovative work.

[Neil2]

1 hour ago, adam1uk said:

There are these notes made by Andy Tidy from the National Users Forum, and if you ask Richard Parry he'll tell you, as this post in another thread demonstrates.

 

I'm well aware of the position regarding future government funding, my assertion is that CRT can't simply throw a bit of research and a "rebranding" exercise at DEFRA and say there you go we're doing our best.  The government will only be convinced if CRT can prove that this vision of a wonderful new public amenity is actually becoming reality, and it that respect any efforts to encourage more widespread use of the canals have to have demonstrable results. 

 

In other words the rebranding exercise, and any other measures, has to have grass roots appeal and CRT need more folk contributing hard cash - there's no better way of proving your message is getting across.        

[Allan(nb Albert)]

11 hours ago, Neil2 said:

 

I'm well aware of the position regarding future government funding, my assertion is that CRT can't simply throw a bit of research and a "rebranding" exercise at DEFRA and say there you go we're doing our best.  The government will only be convinced if CRT can prove that this vision of a wonderful new public amenity is actually becoming reality, and it that respect any efforts to encourage more widespread use of the canals have to have demonstrable results. 

 

In other words the rebranding exercise, and any other measures, has to have grass roots appeal and CRT need more folk contributing hard cash - there's no better way of proving your message is getting across.        

Since 2002, visitor numbers have been the key indicator for public benefit of the waterways.  Indeed, one of BW's long term objectives was to double visitor numbers over a ten year period ending 2012. 

 

Nothing has changed under C&RT and average number of visitors per two week period is still the measure used today.

 

The problem C&RT has is that it is making very little progress in improving visitor numbers. Last year (2017/18), it managed 4.3m against a  target of 4.5m. This was no improvement on the previous year and the same as BW achieved in 2010/11 (albeit the BW figure includes Scotland).

 

With regard to the rebranding and research, I don't think they will count for much with Defra. Number of visitors is the name of the game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Athy]

13 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

 

The problem C&RT has is that it is making very little progress in improving visitor numbers. Last year (2017/18), it managed 4.3m against a  target of 4.5m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who stands and counts them? Whoever it is, couldn't they be doing something useful instead?

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Athy said:

Who stands and counts them? Whoever it is, couldn't they be doing something useful instead?

A market research company is paid to phone up 2000 people at random and ask them if they have visited a canal in the last 2 weeks. The answer is then extrapolated to the 60 million population.

 

The contract is up for renewal as I posted in an earlier thread.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[MoominPapa]

2 minutes ago, Athy said:

Who stands and counts them? Whoever it is, couldn't they be doing something useful instead?

Congratulations. You just managed to encapsulate most human endeavour in the 21st century. For a longer exposition, see "Bullshit Jobs"  by David Graeber.

 

MP.

 

[Athy]

14 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

A market research company is paid to phone up 2000 people at random and ask them if they have visited a canal in the last 2 weeks. The answer is then extrapolated to the 60 million population.

 

 

Ha! That'll be accurate and meaningful, then.

I suggest the installation of turnstiles at every public entrance to a towpath, so that more exact figures may be garnered. This could be done for...ooh, £60k, could it not?

[john6767]

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

A market research company is paid to phone up 2000 people at random and ask them if they have visited a canal in the last 2 weeks. The answer is then extrapolated to the 60 million population.

 

The contract is up for renewal as I posted in an earlier thread.

Personally I would say that is never going to give any sort of valid answer.  Presumably they are dealing random land line numbers, so that only includes people with a landline that they answer calls on, which I would suggest is getting fewer and fewer, and massively skewed to a certain part of the population.  Or do they include mobile numbers, which again who answers a number they don’t recognise. Once they have got to the percentage who answer the phone to them, it is only a certain type of person that would give these people the time of day.  

 

So all told I really can see how that technique has any chance of giving valid results, but does that help or hinder CRT.