New rebrand, what new rebrand
123 replies
JVB66 replied on 30/04/2017 12:24
Posted on 30/04/2017 12:20 by FishermanNot now allowed to criticise the rebrand according to the May Mag. It was all thought out by the overpaid tea drinkers at HO. Forget what the members want ie more sites, cheaper bookings. All that is relegated to the long grass by the ego trips.
VolvoV70 replied on 01/05/2017 14:53
Posted on 30/04/2017 12:24 by JVB66And on what planet is the "gushy" woman on in the letters page
,also it seems you need to have an mbe to get a letter published about the new company
Posted on 01/05/2017 14:53
Was I the only one who noticed the reply from the Membership Services Team to the letter headed "In the dark"? It said (inter alia) that "The cost [of the rebrand] has been planned and budgeted in advance"
Why then has the significant number of requests for these figures to be told to us been ignored? Also, this does not fit the narrative of the Club's Executive Secretary, who stated at a regional meeting that the figures had not been finalised.
Whilst we are at it, when will we be told the budgeted figures for the increase in revenue streams for membership numbers, increase in site occupation, etc etc that will arise from the exercise? This kind of detail would be part of any professionally conducted rebrand process
5 people like this
fatbelly replied on 01/05/2017 20:34
huskydog replied on 01/05/2017 20:39
JVB66 replied on 01/05/2017 20:44
Posted on 01/05/2017 20:34 by fatbellyI've said this before but SOME members of our club are the biggest whinging, complaining, stick in the mud set of moaners I have ever come across.
Wildwood replied on 02/05/2017 11:11
Posted on 02/05/2017 11:11
The exercise looks to have been an unpopular and serious waste of money, but it is done now so I suppose we just have to make the best of it. Personally though i would get rid of the logo which whatever the club suggests in no way relevant to the club. The logo is just a mess and is not fit for purpose.
10 people like this
rjmzoom replied on 06/05/2017 11:02
Posted on 06/05/2017 11:02
Maybe we have to accept the name change. But I really really loathe the new logo and colour scheme.
The green colour has been a fundamental part of the logo all these years and to now change to a brown flower is a real let down.
I don't recall many companies logos using this brown colour, and there's probably a great reason for that.
Bring back the green!
6 people like this
DavidKlyne replied on 06/05/2017 19:14
Posted on 06/05/2017 11:02 by rjmzoomMaybe we have to accept the name change. But I really really loathe the new logo and colour scheme.
The green colour has been a fundamental part of the logo all these years and to now change to a brown flower is a real let down.
I don't recall many companies logos using this brown colour, and there's probably a great reason for that.
Bring back the green!
Posted on 06/05/2017 19:14
I do tend to agree. We are currently on our first Club site since the rebrand and the colours just don't compute, they are insipid . I think had they kept the colours of the previous upgrade from dark to a lighter green it would have kept a connection. I have no problem with the change of name but the more I see of the new colours the more I think they just don't work.
David
2 people like this
EJB986 replied on 07/05/2017 09:17
Posted on 07/05/2017 09:17
There is a letter in the May magazine titled 'Outstanding Job' that informs us how good the re-brand really is?
I assume the writer works in East Grimstead.
The comments to the letter before that one in the magazine from the Director General states:-
"The decision to re-brand was not based on a specific consultation of members, however the name change and logo were based on feedback and in consultation with your elected representatives on the Executive Committee.
So it's our fault for electing the wrong committee members!?
I presume the forum faults are also our doing....somehow?
6 people like this
DavidKlyne replied on 07/05/2017 17:41
Posted on 07/05/2017 17:41
EJB
I have been in similar circumstances in my working life where I have been consulted on things but unless I was in a position to put up a convincing argument against the changes it was very difficult to persuade management to alter their course and also avoid the charge of being negative. So whilst what the DG says is correct we don't know the circumstances of how the question was put. Perhaps worth considering that if jobs are about to be made redundant those involved enter a period of "consultation" I somehow doubt that many consultations have changed the course of the original idea.
David
1 person likes this
Riba
Caravanner