I’m quite happy being called Mark. It’s nice and short, easy to say and comes from the Roman god of war – Mark was one of the three commonest male names in Ancient Rome. And seems fitting given that I was born in March too.
My surname, Avery, is of uncertain origin. I had a maiden aunt who thought that it came from a mispronunciation by the Normans of the Saxon name Alfred and she was convinced that we were descended from Alfred the Great. Others pointed out that it was almost as likely that we Averys were descended from a gorilla called Alfred in Bristol Zoo.
Our names are a label from our past and our ancestors. Birds don’t get to choose the names that we give them, and we sometimes change their names anyway. I was looking at an Audubon plate of a Rathbone’s warbler in Frankfort, KY in mid-May wondering which species that really was because none has that name now. Having looked it up I see that it was what is now a yellow warbler although not the very best of the great JJA’s efforts, I think. Yellow warblers are splendidly yellow, bright yellow, really yellow and the males have red streaks on the breast just to show off the yellow some more.
American warblers have a strange mixture of names. Some are wonderfully apt and others are geographically misplaced.
Cerulean is a wonderful name for the blue warbler that is hard to see and which is now on my list! And prothonotory is a great name for the yellow-cloaked warbler of the wet woodlands.
Connecticut warblers don’t nest in Connecticut; Tennessee warblers don’t warble more in Nashville than they do in other American cities over which they fly on their way to nest in Canada and nor, moreover, do Nashville warblers. I’m told that some of these names come from where the species were first collected – but there must be a case for renaming some of them? Connecticut warbler could be ‘Creeping’ or ‘Mouse-like’ warbler to reflect its habits. And Tennessee warbler might be ‘Spruce’ warbler to reflect where it nests?
You may not like those suggestions – changing names is a bit tricky. And that’s why I have a smidgeon of sympathy for the RSPB who have decided to change the name of ‘BIRDS’ magazine to ‘Nature’s Home’ – but only a smidgeon, and quite a small smidgeon, an almost vanishingly small smidgeon. See the latest BIRDS – the last ever BIRDS – for the announcement (page 85).
I like the RSPB’s advertisement and can see where they are coming from, and the refresh of the ‘brand’ is a good idea, and the ‘new’ logo is perfectly OK with me. I can see that changing the name of the magazine is a good idea too. It’s just that when you have any name in the world to choose, and nobody is forcing you to change anyway, then you have to get it right – ‘Nature’s Home’ is wrong. I’m a bit sad that the RSPB has made this palpable mistake. It’s not going to ruin my life but it’s like when any much-respected and admired friend and colleague does something a bit naff then one feels sorry for them, and a little bit sorry for oneself as one of their friends. It’s a lapse of judgement.
The badly chosen title, ‘Nature’s Home’, is ambiguous – is this magazine the ‘home of nature’ or is it announcing that ‘nature is home’. Either way – it’s still naff. I wish the RSPB would reconsider – but I’m sure they won’t. I expect that many people had their say over whether to change the name and what it should be – it’s a pity that they got it so wrong.
But maybe you love it to bits – vote in this poll to tell me whether I am right or not, and to tell the RSPB what you think.
The cover of the last BIRDS, the last ever BIRDS, is superb. It shows a bearded tit trying to drown itself when it heard of the new name for BIRDS magazine.
[registration_form]
Mark
To me it is a clear marketing strategy. Most people fall into three values categories those outward facing interested in the world and others, those interested in themselves and those that are interested in their homes (castles) / families. Essentially the RSPB seem to be targeting the latter. Probably because many the first group will already be members and the ones in the second will never be members. Therefore appealing to the interests and values in the latter they can target the group (and it is a large grouping) that would not be traditional members and may become if advertised to correctly. Quite cleaver really. (Thinking about it – it is also what Springwatch does with the blue tit stories).
This demonstrates that the NGO sector are starting to get some decent advice rather than pushing messages of woe and guilt (which only will ever work to a very small number of people).
Good luck RSPB! The other reason is that I have read too much into this.
Cowboy
I like Mark, Avery’s ok too, can’t stand ‘natures home’ – off to drown myself (second attempt!)
Yours sincerely
Mr Bearded Tit (of Titchwell)
Mr Bearded tit – don’t do it!
The RSPB is clearly positioning itself to represent all nature without explicitly saying so and the change of magazine title supports this. However, the title they’d probably like to use is already taken – Nature.
Wildlife is the name of the BBC mag.
Natural World would be associated with the BBC TV series.
Birdwatch, Birdwatching, British Birds, Birding World are all taken, and anyhow, they’d want to stay clear of the word British as they are international in scope now.
If the magazine content goes beyond birds then it’s right to change the title, although to be fair I hardly ever even open it when I receive mine, so I can’t tell you what’s been in any issue for a couple of years now.
It sometimes feels more like a marketing brochure aimed at elderly retired or semi-retired people (in particular women) with lots of leisure time and lots of money to spend on very expensive cruises and railway holidays.
As a keen birder with a real interest in the science of birds: migration, speciation, behaviour etc, the magazine doesn’t speak to me.
I also asked the RSPB to consider doing an electronic version to cut down on paper use (partly because as I say above I don’t even read mine), but my suggestion was rejected out of hand. I thought it was a membership organisation? Why not ask the members?
Just to add to my last message which may seem overly nit-picky. While I don’t read the magazine itself, I do like reading the Scotland newsletter. That to me is short and to the point and usually covers stuff of direct relevance to me and it feels more like the RSPB talking to me rather than a glossy magazine that could be produced by anyone.
That the new name is naff is not in doubt. It’s the content that bothers me most!
I suppose it would cost too much to offer a choice of magazines: either stick with the family friendly lifestyle stuff (Nature’s Home), or plump for a more overtly action / bird conservation oriented magazine, with a hefty dose of science content to boot. RSPB (sorry, rspb) does some superb science, but the science dept. doesn’t seem to get much of a chance to shout about it and must envy colleagues at BTO and Cornell, both of whose magazines get the balance of depth and accesibility just right, IMHO. I might even be prepared to pay extra for the latter sort of publication, since I wouldn’t want funds diverting from real on the ground conservation work.
And if a focus on all nature is desirable, how about some really in depth articles on reserve ecology, rather than the overwhelming amount of recent content on gardens which frankly makes disenfranchised young landless folk such as myself feel quite left out?! The size of the garden illustrated in the feature in the last Birds is ridiculous. I’m sure it was merely for purposes of depicting as many potential garden habitats as possible, but still! Who has a garden like that?! Not the average member, I’d wager.
For those who are interested in the RSPB’s science and ecological research, perhaps I could point out that they produce an annual report ‘Conservation Science in the RSPB’ which is freely available online. You do have to dig a bit to find it, but the latest (2011-12) report is at http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/con_sci2011_12_tcm9-325680.pdf
http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/science/ contains lots of more detailed reports (also free to download) with recent (2013) titles including Climate Change and European Important Bird Areas; Annual Bittern monitoring; Dramatic declines of redshank breeding on saltmarshes; The Birdfair/RSPB Research Fund for Endangered Birds; Isles of Scilly Seabird Recovery Project; EU LIFE+ Project – Securing the future of the stone-curlew in the UK; and East Midlands Woodland Biodiversity Project.
Thanks David. I have seen those reports, and very good they are, but I need kind folk like you to remind me they are there, whereas I reckon they should be loudly and proudly trumpeted!
You are joking Mr.Avery? Avery has originated from the Gaelic Aimhrea (the “mh” is pronunced “v”) meaning “contention or disagreement” but also it’s thought to have come from the Latin “Aviarius” meaning bird keeper either way very suitable sir 🙂
McTrollane???
Seriously though, I don’t like the mag name and it is probably pointless to choose a new name because I would imagine the content is not going to change THAT much. Having said that, the magazine has arguably (and this from someone who has had articles published in it) been out of touch for years and I know that one of my friends who has been a member for years has piles of the magazines still in their cellophane wrappers. I suppose the real question mark should be over whether such lavish publication should be produced at all but I confess that I do not have an answer to that one.
I understand that the advertising in Birds pays for the publication and distribution at no cost to the membership.
To be honest, I was thinking about the ‘greening’ side of producing the magazine rather than the cost (or not, in this case) to members.
In view of the fact that I have read replies below this I should point out that this poll has Mark asking whether we like the new title of the magazine. Personally, I am fully in support of the RSPB’s ‘new’ direction even if I suspect with some justification that it has been brought about by the growing success of the Springwatch message. Unfortunately (and I am guessing I am not alone on this one), I had a niggling feeling that the RSPB’s success might not be as guaranteed as it sometimes seemed although I thought any slump in fortunes would probably be beyond my lifetime. As Peter Cranswick’s post says, not much has changed globally but things can change very quickly at local level, as I found to my cost when trying to fight a development proposal on part of my local patch. I am talking about the third most important bird watching site in Greater Manchester and I now genuinely fear that it will not keep that status within in my lifetime (I am in my early 50s). I was staggered at how little support or dare I say, interest I got from local wildlife NGOs and it made me realise how much we need the tools to fight this kind of thing as individuals and that includes general wildlife knowledge for as many people as possible. Therefore, I have absolutely no issue with the RSPB rebranding but Mark’s poll asked about the name of the magazine and I am sorry, it is personal preference but I don’t like it although I am not against a renaming per se. Oh and by the way, I still think the magazine is out of touch with what people want to read and I am taking a step back to say that because I always liked the content from a personal perspective.
Surely, the most appropriate title would be….ADVERTS. 😉
The picture of the bearded tit really is very special, it actually made me pick up ‘Birds’ and have a quick peek at its contents, something I seldom do. I agree with the above comments made by John and Chris Foster regarding the content.
For some time I have been meaning to contact the RSPB in order to ask them to stop sending me a copy of ‘Birds’, as sending one to our household is a waste of paper and postage. Untill the RSPB sort out the content, I don’t see that the name matters.
‘Wild Times’ on the other hand is excellent, my daughter loves it.
Haha yeah or ‘Advert’s Home’. Not read it for a while but full of adverts targeting the elder crowd. Stairlifts, bonds, slippers etc which put me off, just like the National Trust’s mag. All going very corporately un-unique thanks to the marketing crowd. How about making it an option whether to receive the mag or go digital. A lot of people I speak to are members because there is nothing else. How about something else for those really bothered about securing land for birds or a branch off RSPB.
Also how about asking people what they want from the RSPB? Areas that they’re interested in, reasons why they joined, where they’d like funds targeted. That would give a profile of what the member includes.
Robin – welcome and thank you.
Having worked in Sitka Spruce plantations, Oak Woods, Birch Woods and even Reed beds for the RSPB ‘Natures Home’ is everywhere but why change the name of some thing which does not need changing! Commercial magazines like ‘Bird Watching, Bird Watch and BBC Wildlife do not need to change their titles so why the RSPB! The National Trust may have a much bigger membership but how many old houses do the RSPB have to visit other than The Lodge with all its extensions. With a reduction in the CAP and the Stewardship it must be a worrying time for charities so why waste money changing your cloths now!
Assuming this is much more than just the name of a magazine, I think it’s a great idea.
I don’t know RSPB’s rationale or deeper thinking, but I’m hoping it’s the start of the step-change that might just save the environment before humans push it beyond the point of no return.
The environment is going to hell in a handcart. Of course, we can and should celebrate many conservation successes in recent decades. But are we making genuine inroads into the bigger stuff and genuine problems in time to avert disaster? I fear not.
Global climate change is going to make current austerity measures look like the biggest of hedonistic parties to those suffering its consequences in a hundred years’ time. We’ve known this for decades, but as a species, do we drive less, fly less, burn less coal? Governments and global agreements create laudable environmental targets for 2010, 2020 etc, but many of these come and go often without agreement about how to measure them, let alone there being real action to do anything about them (so let’s quickly skip over actual change). The massive decline in farmland birds has been firmly on our radar for a while now. Any notable improvements? Oh, but at least we’ve persuaded the farming community to be sympathetic and CAP has been reformed to balance conservation with industry. Ah. Perhaps not. Moths – declined massively in 40 years. Rainforest – seemingly a luxury of simpler times, and we cling to celebrating that the massive rate at which it disappears has slowed slightly in the last decade. It’s still going and going fast. Closer to home, the same is true of ponds, marshes, hedgerows, hay meadows, heathland. All this is in an age of conservation enlightenment.
I suspect a fair summary is that we have not genuinely made any big inroads to reversing any of these issues. Yet even as we fight – but fail – to address these, new issues arise constantly. Think neonicotinoids, buzzards and badgers in the last six months. Thankfully, the government is on the ball to prevent such nonsense. Oops. Wrong again.
What does all this have to do with changing the name of a conservation organisation’s members’ magazine? I think quite a lot.
Why don’t the things above get addressed? I’d wager because most people don’t know (and therefore don’t care), so Governments don’t have to act (with the exception of the odd sensible and very strong-willed individual MP, of which there aren’t enough). So while the majority of our species clamours for better standards of living and short-term governments seek re-election, the latter are duty bound to pander to the masses, and environmental exploitation balances their equation of quick returns.
A million RSPB members shouting in favour the environment is excellent. But that’s still a niche minority. And do they all shout? And do those shouting shout only about birds? The depressing reality is that that’s a niche interest of a niche minority, of which only a minority speaks up.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a very important niche – and I flippin love birds!
But we need far more than just one million people tacitly supporting a bird conservation organisation to be able to make a difference in any of the above. In Government discussions on transport infrastructure, planning laws, fracking, third runways, fisheries, farming, business development etc, are we seen as more than a bunch of bird-lovers? I bet, on many occasions, probably not. Whatever the reason, the differences that need to happen don’t.
We need much more. We need a much (much) larger proportion of the public at large to be concerned. They will only do that if they take interest, so having a connection is key.
Birds are great, but they’re not that easy to connect with! Everyone sees some in their back garden, but have you ever tried getting a 6-year-old to use a pair of bins? Two minutes later, they might have learned to point and focus, but the (in any case hard-to-identify-brown-thing) has long since flitted on. And iPads are much higher up the Christmas present list than bins.
I’m sure the RSPB is not suggesting for one second that they are LESS interested in birds, or is advocating that anyone else should be.
But to make that bigger, widescale, genuine change, we need (many) more people to have a (much) stronger connection to the environment. And what better way than in your back garden? It’s there, on your doorstep – not fenced off in a reserve an hour’s drive away where you have to pay to get in. And you can do it yourself. Adults and kids alike can create the pile of leaves or dead wood, a nestbox, and see butterflies and a hedgehog, and pick up bugs and caterpillars and frogs. And they will know that THEY did that. They made that difference. They can see and appreciate and relate to it.
Of course, that doesn’t and shouldn’t stop us RSPB members giving £20 to save the Flows in Scotland. But that’s a tough ask of Russell, 44, senior marketing manager, with two kids living in Northampton, who if asked would profess to believing that the environment is important – but has never heard of (and will never have time to find out about) the Flows. But his family could easily do a few simple things in their back garden. Perhaps ‘nature’s home’ is unnecessary to some existing RSPB members – but this is about preaching to more than the converted.
Saving the environment relies on support and taking action. Put aside ‘marketing’ in the pejorative sense – this isn’t the sigh-inducing spin of ‘kills up to 100% of germs’. This is raising awareness, and finding something that a much broader audience of people can relate to, to pique their interest, to make our tiny minority of environment supporters less so.
And ‘nature’s home’ is a chance for them to take action. Imagine if even one in 20 gardens had a pond, and a leaf pile, and nettles, nectar-laden flowers and a bee-house. Of course, all of us bird enthusiasts can keep doing our bird thing (and I’m sure that RSPB will still cater for all our needs), but to the non-birdy folk, ‘nature’s home’ isn’t niche or specialist or elitist or difficult. I think it’s really inviting. And for all those birdy folk who until now have perhaps done relatively little (limited to putting out bird feeders in winter), I hope it will encourage them to do more also.
Further, I also think ‘nature’s home’ adds a very special and personal encouragement that everyone has an opportunity to help – YOU can take a positive step, YOU can make a difference. And it’s enjoyable and interactive (much more tangibly so than donating £20, certainly!) To me, somehow, it offers the ‘opportunity’ of responsibility – a positive message, rather than the guilt or the stories of gloom that inevitably surround things you can’t directly influence, such as rainforests or tigers or farmland birds.
‘Nature’s home’ is surely not about being less birdy – it’s about more wildlife. And not just in your garden, but hopefully reminding everyone that the environment – from urban to farmland to woodland – is nature’s home and therefore matters. I think it’s very clever – it works on several levels and is pitched very well. I suspect it’s probably about right for our times.
I hope and believe that ‘nature’s home’ will build a much wider group of people more likely to point out to their Government of the time that the big issues that they decide upon day-in-day-out should have much greater regard for the environment. RSPB experts can research and campaign and meet with Government all they like, but without that genuine grassroots support (ie from voters), Governments will always find it easy (and, while we remain a niche minority, are perhaps are even duty-bound) to fob off the environment.
Saving Avocets and Bitterns and Spoon-billed Sandpipers are all important and urgent conservation projects, but what (I believe) underlies ‘nature’s home’ is the essential bit of conservation if the movement is to come close to achieving its real objectives in the coming decades.
So shout it loud and proud wherever you can – TV, websites and magazines. (My copies of ‘Birds’ end up in the doctor’s waiting room, so the name is important beyond just the members who receive it.) And let’s hope that us members might just follow suit when talking to neighbours, colleagues, MPs and people down the pub.
(Apologies to the two of you who have bothered reading this far. And, no, I don’t work in the RSPB marketing department…)
Peter – right to the end. Thank you.
So did I – and it inspired me to vote in Mark’s poll.
Peter – your comment is thought provoking and challenging.
I certainly fail on being an evangelist for nature, preferring instead to contribute what I can on my own. Engaging with the wider public is absolutely vital and is something that we should all be doing whenever possible.
I will certainly try harder.
I read Peter Cranswick’s reply, every word of it, and marvelled at his articulate and thought provoking analysis.
When I first saw that the rspb is going to change the name of the magazine my first instinct was that it was wrong, I thought it bland, non-specific and a bit naff and I voted no in Mark’s poll. As I read the comments on Mark’s blog I felt disturbed and a bit angry at the comments. Here was another opportunity to slag off the rspb on many fronts. Birds is distributed only to members, it is not to be found for sale on supermarket shelves, it doesn’t need a name that attracts the general public to buy it. To those who leave it in the wrapper and not even bother to open it, do like Peter and take it to your doctor’s surgery or the local library (if you still have one). To those who belong to the rspb because it’s ‘the only thing available’ what about the BTO, WWT, Buglife etc. What about subscribing to British Birds if you want in depth scientific analysis. I suppose I’m very fortunate in being one of those who are retired, settled and have just enough income to indulge these fancies, but I also believe we are the major supporters of the rspb and the work it does. I have worked as a volunteer for fifteen years since I retired on a local reserve together with a dedicated group, much of an age, who turn up in all weathers to help the environment in all it’s diversity. We see, at the coal-face (if you’ll excuse the analogy) all the hard dedicated work that the rspb does, not just on it’s reserves but in the community, with farmer’s (I see Martin Harper is hosting the Minister of Ag. on Hope Farm today, an organisation without influence couldn’t do that), overseas and on the high seas.
So what’s in a name? I’m not sure it’s important but if it helps to attract more of the general public to the cause, go for it. Give your copy of Birds, when you’ve read it, to a non-member and spread the word . They might even find a holiday that attracts them!
“To those who leave it in the wrapper and not even bother to open it, do like Peter and take it to your doctor’s surgery or the local library”
A very fair point.
Has there been any response or comment from the Wildlife Trusts regarding this RSPB repositioning?
When will the RSPB seriously consider changing its name to properly reflect its developing status?
Is there a target demographic?
p.s. I don’t like the change but am prepared to accept that I appear to be a part of a small minority.
There is an evident gap between the society long term supporters and its potential supporters, you could say the converted and the non-converted. Preaching to the converted is never progressive, but how to you convince the converted that they are, and need to be ‘on the inside’ ? This is evident on a large scale – as well as in every reserve I have visited. It works well when the learned take a moment out from looking for a pectoral sandpiper and show others where the oyster catcher chicks are. I can think of many situations where it creates a lot of friction
So, the RSPB need to sus out how to ‘dumb down’ the bottom …. and then bring those hooked into the fold, and the people in the fold need to help as well as being ‘appreciated’
What about a two membership options ? Would you pay more for a science and land management led mag taking on the more technical aspects of the work? A bit like the BTO/Ringers options
I think “Nature’s Home” is very apt. Every time it comes through my door I shred it rather than reading the dumbed down rubbish. I prefer reading the reports online – the originals and not what has been changed for primary school level.
So “Nature’s Home” will be Nature’s Home once it is in my compost. 🙂