SRGC- changing name?

[Regelian]

I just received The Rock Garden 126, which is just great, by the way, and in an accompaniing letter from our Prez. Liz Mills, possibly changing the name of the group has been considered.  The reason apparently being to get more young people involved.  The current name may not be enticing or current enough, I gather.

Well, I must admit the name didn't exactly excite me, when I first heard of the group, but, in retrospect, I think that was more because I am not a dyed in the wool rocker. I am more of a general gardener with specific plant interests, many of which fall under rock garden techniques.  Of course, I have never regretted joining and this forum is truly the main reason (plus the amazing seed-ex, but we all know that!). Plus, the publications have to be seen to be truly understood and appreciated. 

Specifically what I found off-putting on the name was 'club'.  This always sounds so private and exclusive to me and not really welcoming.  As if one had to pass an acceptance test before being included, which couldn't be farther from the truth.  OK, then what do we replace this with?  Do we even need to.  The name is kinda cool, once you get over the sterotype.  Society seems very official, Consortium almost threatening, Group a bit amatuer.  I really don't know.

Also, although based largely in Scottland, it is really an international gathering of plant lovers.  Should European be in the name?  Brittania? International?  Planet Earth!

What ever.

In the case of a name change, there should be a good reason to do it.  Names hang about and imprint any undertaking.  Do we NEED a name change?  Maybe, maybe not.  I'm not sure if it will atract more attention or even the right attention.  The suggested Scottish Rock didn't sit with me.  Too easily confused with music and won't Google well.  Scottish Mountain Plant Society seems limiting, as many rock garden plants are not from the mountains, rather from pretty flat deserts.  Alpine would have the same limitations.

Just thout I would open up a discussion on the topic.

[maggiepie]

My opinion is to leave the name alone, I can't imagine too many people would want to change it. In fact I would think some long term members could get  somewhat upset at the very idea.
I love the little SRGC flower logo, it is instantly recognizable.
I also received my Journal today plus my  membership card which I must confess I enjoy seeing in my wallet whenever I am fishing around for something.

[ranunculus]

The official name of the club must have been discussed 'ad infinitum' at pre-formation meetings and every conceivable alternative assessed and rejected, apart, of course, from Scottish Rock, unless it proved confusing for the geologists (and not groovy musicians), at that time.
We all joined this wonderful society irrespective of the name and most of us use just the initials or 'Scottish Rock' when in the company of the converted.  I cannot imagine anyone with the slightest interest in our incredible hobby being put off by a name ... it expresses so much and so succinctly.
We already attract alpine growers from around the globe and not one of these valued members was dissuaded by the name.  We will never know how many didn't join, their loss must be hard for them to bear?

[majallison]

Memberships of horticultural societies around the world are falling & the membership that remains is increasingly ageing.
 
It is, of course, important to attract new members or a society can become 'stale' & eventually cease to exist.  But an important question is whether SRGC wants to be a relatively small society with an active membership, or a big society (such as the RHS) where the membership is largely passive i.e. they pay their subscriptions, receive the magazine & that's about the sum total of their involvement.

And I think Scottish Rock is a totally duff name.

[ranunculus]

May I just reiterate that I am not advocating Scottish Rock as an alternative name, it has become an accepted pet name when alpine growers congregate, but should never replace Scottish Rock Garden Club in wider horticultural circles.

[Maggi Young]

May I just reiterate that I am not advocating Scottish Rock as an alternative name, it has become an accepted pet name when alpine growers congregate, but should never replace Scottish Rock Garden Club in wider horticultural circles.

That's true, Cliff, it's a nickname and from the time someone, I think it was Michael Almond, first appeared in a t-shirt with Scottish Rocker printed on it we have all enjoyed the wee joke. Hence the fun Forum T-shirts we had printed.

[Maggi Young]

Jamie's take on "club" sounding too exclusive is interesting because most of the SRGC folk I know like that we are a "club" because to us that suggests informality and inclusivness.... just shows you how perceptions can differ!

When it comes to name changes I think it's dangerous territory.... I remember that fuss and expense that  has gone into changing the names of business.... almost never works! And choclate bars.... half the people who speak about a Snickers bar say, it used to be a Marathon, y'know! Think of the changing of the name of the Royal Mail to Consignia.... what a farce that turned out to be.
(  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2002480.stm )

We're  a gathering of plant lovers; there seem to be plenty finding us as the Scottish Rock Garden Club.... I can't think the name makes a big difference. Vitality and enthusiasm for sharing our interest, and letting people know it, seems a key feature to me.

Malcolm's point that all organisations, not just of a horticultural type, are experiencing downturns in membership now, have been for some time.....it seems a feature of modern life that folks are not much into "joining" thing these days.  Against that, see the rise of the internet and the phenomenon that is the "social networking site"..... clues there to both bring in more and  younger members, I think.
Perhaps that is why five in six of new SRGC members come via the internet?
Though of course, that's not a surprise to Forumists, is it? 

[Martin Baxendale]

Scottish has to stay, since that's where the thing is based and most active members live, most of the shows are held, and the club should in any case be bloody proud to be Scottish.

Rock Garden sounds more accessible, less specialist and generally more down-to-earth than Alpine. The alternative would have to be some long-winded mish-mash like miniature plants, bulbs and shrubs enthusiasts' club.

Club to me sounds cosier and more welcoming than Society or Association.

I'd stick with what we have. Organisations like this have increasingly ageing memberships for various reasons, not least because we live in an ageing society with more and more older people in proportion to younger people. Changing the name of something seldom seems to achieve much and can seem silly in hindsight. If there are reasons the organisation atrracts few younger members, it's unlikely a name change will make much diference.

[Regelian]

May I just reiterate that I am not advocating Scottish Rock as an alternative name, it has become an accepted pet name when alpine growers congregate, but should never replace Scottish Rock Garden Club in wider horticultural circles.

and I was looking foreward to putting out our first single and charting big time!     

[TheOnionMan]

I too like the name Scottish Rock Garden Club, sounds friendly enough.  Were there any actual names suggested to entice the younger set, like Alpine Twitter?

In 1995 the ARGS (American Rock Garden Society) changed its named to NARGS (North American Rock Garden Society), to be more inclusive of our friends up north.  Although, when there is a name change, and one references older bulletins and such, we have to repeatedly explain the early name and acronym, which is a nuisance.

Maggi, you wrote "Perhaps that is why five in six of new SRGC members come via the internet?"  Is that a fairly accurate count?  The reason I ask, as you know I've been a big proponent of NARGS Forum open registration, and it shall become a reality this weekend (expect a formal announcement soon).  The sort of numbers you report inspire hope that NARGS can reverse the trend of slowly shrinking membership.

[Lesley Cox]

I'm all for staying with what we have. It's of Scottish origin and Scottish organization so stay Scottish, rock garden rather than alpine garden because that often implies ONLY alpine plants and while the membership's tastes are entirely catholic, it is rock garden plants that bound us all together in the first place but the Forum especially, caters for us all. Club is fine, and "cosy" compared with e.g. society which implies a requirement for a more learned membership. No, to Scottish Rock or Rockers. That's the joke Maggi mentioned and that's fine but we aren't all of that mind.

We see it all the time, in businesses for example, when names, especially well known names are changed, the public perception of that business becomes blurred and we don't know who they are or what they do or who we're dealing with. Change just for the SAKE of change, is never a good idea so let's leave well alone.

It's true that younger people don't want to join things much. They're too busy with work, families, school sports etc so they do their "hobby" things on the internet. That's fine to my mind and SRGC has taken the best possible steps and is at a great advantage, in nurturing and encouraging their (our) Forum to the degree they (we) do.

[Lesley Cox]

I've just read Mark's comments and one thing I'd like to say regarding that. To my mind  the Forum here is so successful because of the extremely high friendly tolerance factor that the admins allow. There is NO formality at all so we all feel we can say anything about anything, so long as we stay within the bounds of common sense (no, forget that one) and courtesy to all. Is this just because it's an "open" Forum such as you describe Mark? I don't know about the AGS Forum. I suspect we have to be an AGS member and log in each time. It should be an outstanding Forum, given the quality of the leadership of the Society over many years, the quality of the Bulletins and the seedlists. Yet I almost never check in there unless in response to a link on this Forum. Why is that? I really don't know, except to say I feel absolutely at home here in every way. Even when I do occasionally get my fingers smacked - deservedly - I never feel I want to leave or back away.

What is wonderful of course is that Liz Mills is asking members through the Journal, for their opinions (mine arrived yesterday). In so many other situations members or constituents or whatever, are handed a fait accompli with no chance to change it or take part in the original decision making. Thanks for that Liz, and thanks Jamie for introducing the discussion here, tho' you don't seem to be getting many wanting to change things much.

[Onion]

The name is good.
It is not the name we must changed. A 'Club' or 'Society' lives from the activities of the members.
And it will cost a lot to change the name. New paper, new logo with new lettering, new membership cards etc.

[David Nicholson]

IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT

SRGC is apt; recognised; fits; friendly; informative;

Names, whatever they are will not bring in new members. Attitudes, have a chance!!

[Liz Mills]

What a great response - just what I was hoping would happen. Please keep posting your thoughts on this and the Club in general for every post will be read and treated as of equal value.