A Message from Richard Parry to Boaters

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

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

Fill them in, concrete them over and they'd make excellent cycleways which would dramatically improve the well being and health of the nation.

 

Just keep the Rivers as they help 'drain' the country, and can be used by proper boats.

[dmr]

12 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.

 

 

 

The rebranding is claimed to allow CaRT to be recognised by a wider range of the general public, which is a good idea, but this needs positive publicity/advertising of some kind rather than re-branding, and I am convinced that new brand can never be more than half a brand, a confused brand, and so less recognised. I even note that the old black and white image is still used for the actual sign tiles (mooring bollard, water tap etc) within the new blue signs.

 

As an example, I have just spent a night on the pontoon mooring below Anderton lift. The posts for the pontoons are classic black posts with white tops and look great. There is a large "navigate ahead don't go down the weir stream" sign in black and white. I doubt this could be replaced because a blue one would be less readable. The lift itself is a massive historic iconic structure....and its Black and White. Right in the middle of this CaRT have a huge new brand blue sign looking like a water utility company. And just to make it interesting a CaRT work boat is moored below the lift, CaRT still have a lovely Proper old work boat here, and its in British Waterways blue and yellow livery. ?

 

Richard is a decent and sensible bloke (or truly superb con man) and pro-boating but I do suspect that a lot of other senior people within CaRT think very differently and would prefer to be running a non-boating leisure and property business.

 

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

 

 

[David Mack]

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

We used to do it all the time - I realise that legislation has changed in the last few years

The legislation changed 8 days ago!

With the GDPR coming into effect on 25 May, buying in mailing lists could be a thing of the past.

[matty40s]

I wonder if English heritage will object to lots of blue things being stuck on historic buildings and structures,  ruins what they are supposed to be preserving.

[Horace42]

" 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".

 

Even the annual expenditure is open to question. Is 'well over £100m' the expenditure on navigation things (a majority of an unspecified total), or is the 'well over £100m' the total, of which the majority is spent on navigation.   In which case 51% could be a 'majority'.  So where does the other 49% go?

 

But whatever the actual figure is, how about a breakdown of the specific tasks costing ''well over £100m",  into a level  where we can see the actual task - and the specific cost.

 

The volunteers can then select those they are able to do on a regular basis (as and when required) free of any labour charge, but perhaps supplied with suitable special equipment for the job - and help with out-of-pocket expenses.

 

Until such time CRT cut back on unnecessary money wasting exercises and layers of costly non-productive management - I can't see my way clear of volunteering for anything.

 

[Midnight]

2 hours 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.

 

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.

A good logo should reflect the core aims and you're right the the bridge logo did that and was recognisable without the words unlike to new sewer outfall. However the main issue as I see it is this re-branding is aimed at a wider audience - 90% of CaRT's customers according to Mr Parry - but the wider audience doesn't actually pay towards the system other than through taxes like boaters. I'm not convinced more donations will follow. In fact judging from the feedback I see, donations are likely to fall slightly as disgruntled friends cancel direct debits in protest. Maybe CaRT will be able to tap other grant funding based on healthier and happier lifestyle but they could have done that without a complete rebranding. Our boat club, on the Calder Navigation where maintenance is extremely poor right now, has sent a letter to Mr Parry in protest. That's quite a few contributors cancelling donations. TBH the new colour scheme is a positive, but this re-branding comes at a time when the system itself is crying out for more resources to be spent on maintenance. Frankly I find it all a bit of an insult.

[Alan de Enfield]

19 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

But whatever the actual figure is, how about a breakdown of the specific tasks costing ''well over £100m",  into a level  where we can see the actual task - and the specific cost.

You can look at their accounts if you want to.

 

But expenditure briefly :

 

Maintenance, repairs and minor works £24.1m

Major infrastructure works £19.6m

Vegetation £7.9m

Buildings, craft, Plant & equipment £12.1m

Dredging £6.3m

Management of volunteers, Travel costs, Insurance £22.5m

Waterways regeneration £25m

Museums £3.5m

 

Throw in the 'people costs' (technical teams, customer service, 'others') and the total expenditure is £156m

 

Edited June 2, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

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

I think you might find that is the ultimate aim, well at least as a navigation for boats.

 

Just have them as linear water parks, jobdone.

[Nightwatch]

I renewed my licence online a couple of days ago. All the web pages had the new logo. It doesn't look so awful but I can't understand the shape and what it's supposed to represent. 

Anyway, all went well and I paid my money and almost immediately got the email with the attached new licence to print off. 

 

"WITH THE OLD LOGO". Oh! Dear, what a shame, never mind. And yes, this was after the rebranding as it's been referred to.

 

I now have to suffer a whole 12 months of seeing the old Swanny logo. 

[Detling]

1 hour ago, Nightwatch said:

I renewed my licence online a couple of days ago. All the web pages had the new logo. It doesn't look so awful but I can't understand the shape and what it's supposed to represent

It has been suggested it is a sinking tyre.

[adam1uk]

17 hours ago, john6767 said:

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.

There’s not wholesale replacement, though. They’ve chosen some high use areas such as the centre of Birmingham and are replacing signs there — but out in the sticks it will probably take years. I gather they’ve categorised some places as gold, silver, and bronze, and will do them first. 

[adam1uk]

2 hours ago, Midnight said:

A good logo should reflect the core aims and you're right the the bridge logo did that and was recognisable without the words unlike to new sewer outfall. However the main issue as I see it is this re-branding is aimed at a wider audience - 90% of CaRT's customers according to Mr Parry - but the wider audience doesn't actually pay towards the system other than through taxes like boaters. I'm not convinced more donations will follow. In fact judging from the feedback I see, donations are likely to fall slightly as disgruntled friends cancel direct debits in protest. Maybe CaRT will be able to tap other grant funding based on healthier and happier lifestyle but they could have done that without a complete rebranding. Our boat club, on the Calder Navigation where maintenance is extremely poor right now, has sent a letter to Mr Parry in protest. That's quite a few contributors cancelling donations. TBH the new colour scheme is a positive, but this re-branding comes at a time when the system itself is crying out for more resources to be spent on maintenance. Frankly I find it all a bit of an insult.

It’s not about getting more donations — it’s about the continuance of the government grant, which is a far bigger and more important sum of money.  You argue that all those visitors ‘only’ pay through their taxes, but that amounts to about a third of CRT’s income so it’s pretty vital to all of us. 

[Lady M]

Because I honestly couldn't remember my licence disks having a CRT logo on, I have looked at the email I received from CRT in February 2018 with my new licence disks attached.  Well, the licence disks do certainly have a swan logo but the spooky thing is that the cover email from CRT, which is apparently stored on a folder on my PC, now shows the new logo!

[system 4-50]

"OK, we're a bit down at the bow.  Obviously we must do something drastic.  How about a rebranding exercise?  Maybe a logo incorporating deckchairs at an angle.  Perhaps with a quartet playing their instruments?"

 

I find Mr Parry's statement genuine and honest and I don't blame him for having as much power as a captain in command of an iceberg.

[Iain_S]

5 hours 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.

Possibly because they're still clean?

[alan_fincher]

43 minutes ago, adam1uk said:

There’s not wholesale replacement, though. They’ve chosen some high use areas such as the centre of Birmingham and are replacing signs there — but out in the sticks it will probably take years. I gather they’ve categorised some places as gold, silver, and bronze, and will do them first. 

Would you expect Berkhamsted to be amongst the very first tackled then, because it has been?

They can't fix long standing issues with the locks, but can take down signs about shop and stay moorings that are less than a year old, and replace them with brand new blue ones with identical wording.

A great shame then that the wording on the original sign was incorrect, and has been replicated on the new one.

CRT previously refused to provide a corrected sign because of the expense involved.

I know it is a cliché, but you really couldn't make this stuff up.

[Horace42]

6 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You can look at their accounts if you want to.

 

But expenditure briefly :

 

Maintenance, repairs and minor works £24.1m

Major infrastructure works £19.6m

Vegetation £7.9m

Buildings, craft, Plant & equipment £12.1m

Dredging £6.3m

Management of volunteers, Travel costs, Insurance £22.5m

Waterways regeneration £25m

Museums £3.5m

 

Throw in the 'people costs' (technical teams, customer service, 'others') and the total expenditure is £156m

 

Thanks for the basics. That is £121m out of £156m. But I had more in mind a published breakdown to a detailed level that individuals could identify with - and volunteer to do the work free of charge, or even put in a competitive tender for it on a paid basis .

Like "grass and hedge cutting - weed control - between locks 'x' and 'y' for 12 months" or "Lubricating paddles and painting lock gates and railings at lock 'x' for 'n' years' - that sort of thing.

 

[Boat&Bikes]

I’m obviously out of sync with the majority here. I quite liked my first sighting of the new logo. Also I’ve not had much trouble with lack of maintenance etc whilst boating in the recent couple of years. 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

Thanks for the basics. That is £121m out of £156m. But I had more in mind a published breakdown to a detailed level that individuals could identify with - and volunteer to do the work free of charge, or even put in a competitive tender for it on a paid basis .

Like "grass and hedge cutting - weed control - between locks 'x' and 'y' for 12 months" or "Lubricating paddles and painting lock gates and railings at lock 'x' for 'n' years' - that sort of thing.

 

You will never get that sort of breakdown from any company, the hours taken to produce it would be prohibitive.

If you look at vegetation control that is one single contract with Fountains (I think) for £7m covering the whole system, no way would C&RT look at going out to tender for (say) 2000 different contracts each of 1 mile - it would be a logistics nightmare.

[Captain Pegg]

21 minutes ago, ianali said:

I’m obviously out of sync with the majority here. I quite liked my first sighting of the new logo. Also I’ve not had much trouble with lack of maintenance etc whilst boating in the recent couple of years. 

 

 

Perhaps with those who choose to vent their views on here but I am not so sure you are out of sync with the majority of boaters. Your sentiments above were pretty much those that Rob-M and myself expressed when we concluded that the new logo appeared to achieve it's aim. It is more modern in style and I suspect will have broader appeal than the previous logos that seem to want to present a bucolic view of canals; a place for those with more time on their hands than they really need. A bit like this forum...

 

JP

[Neil2]

15 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

Perhaps with those who choose to vent their views on here but I am not so sure you are out of sync with the majority of boaters. Your sentiments above were pretty much those that Rob-M and myself expressed when we concluded that the new logo appeared to achieve it's aim. It is more modern in style and I suspect will have broader appeal than the previous logos that seem to want to present a bucolic view of canals; a place for those with more time on their hands than they really need. A bit like this forum...

 

JP

I suspect the majority of boaters actually have no view on it at all.

 

But in any case the forum is discussing the justification for, and the principles behind, the rebranding, not the design of the logo per se.

 

 

Edited June 2, 2018 by Neil2

[Tanglewood]

4 hours ago, system 4-50 said:

I find Mr Parry's statement genuine and honest and I don't blame him for having as much power as a captain in command of an iceberg.

I blame him for allowing himself to believe the marketing departments hype, that what was needed was an expensive rebrand -  they are marketing people for goodness sake, they are supposed to be able to sell what they have. If they got it so badly wrong five years ago, they should be sacked, not allowed to go out and throw funds away by getting it wrong again.  To be honest, I think if the logo had been meaningful instead of meaningless, the reaction would not have been so hostile.  I am reminded that in the children's story, 'The Emperors New Clothes' the fraudsters convinced the King and court that it was the more intelligent people who would be able to see the grandeur of the new garments, I suspect that the grandees at CRT are were told something similar when shown a blue polo mint printed when the ink ran out, and told it represented everything canals and rivers stand for.

 

Sorry Richard Parry - you have significantly misjudged this.  And now you have egg on your face.  I am looking forward to the figures next year to see how many extra people recognise the Trust and what it stands for.

 

[MtB]

 

More pertinently, several on here have suggested they are courting ministers with the re-branding in order to raise the chances of future gov't funding, which seems a viable explanation to me. It would be nice to hear Mr Parry confirm this if true, rather that spew out that patronising twaddle which show he views the objectors as gullible imbeciles. 

[LadyG]

17 minutes ago, Tanglewood said:

I blame him for allowing himself to believe the marketing departments hype, that what was needed was an expensive rebrand -  they are marketing people for goodness sake, they are supposed to be able to sell what they have. If they got it so badly wrong five years ago, they should be sacked, not allowed to go out and throw funds away by getting it wrong again.  To be honest, I think if the logo had been meaningful instead of meaningless, the reaction would not have been so hostile.  I am reminded that in the children's story, 'The Emperors New Clothes' the fraudsters convinced the King and court that it was the more intelligent people who would be able to see the grandeur of the new garments, I suspect that the grandees at CRT are were told something similar when shown a blue polo mint printed when the ink ran out, and told it represented everything canals and rivers stand for.

 

Sorry Richard Parry - you have significantly misjudged this.  And now you have egg on your face.  I am looking forward to the figures next year to see how many extra people recognise the Trust and what it stands for.

 

I tend  to agree: but do we have to wait a year.

It might have been easier to show a few hundred random folks two or three logos, ask them what they think they represent, and I think if they showed a bridge with rushes v a striped polo, I think they might have had a re-think

 I guess the public might struggle with the polo. I don't mind it myself, I will recognise it, but I won't associate it with wellness, or inclusivity. I will associate it with the Captain on the Iceberg tearing up £50 notes under a hot shower. 

Edited June 2, 2018 by LadyG

[LadyG]

9 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

More pertinently, several on here have suggested they are courting ministers with the re-branding in order to raise the chances of future gov't funding, which seems a viable explanation to me. It would be nice to hear Mr Parry confirm this if true, rather that spew out that patronising twaddle which show he views the objectors as gullible imbeciles. 

Where did he say that?

Mind you, there are a few of those in every focus group: the man in the street, some in government, and some on here. 

Edited June 2, 2018 by LadyG