Time for a name change?

[el48tel]

The point that seems to have been missed is that it is not Cactus World (two words) but was actually designed back in 2006 as CactusWorld just one word! Having the ‘W’ as a capital letter in the middle of the word was supposed to be the ‘modern’ part at the time. I don’t think that this concept really worked as everyone I know refers to the journal as 2 separate words.

The title has been discussed over the years and nobody has yet come up with a simple, snappy and up-to-date title that would encompass both cacti and the so called ‘other succulents’ though of course we all know that cacti are succulent plants

Let me have your views for suitable titles.

Al

Al
Surely this is a wonderful opportunity for a "member" competition - more satisfying for the membership because they will feel that they own the process together with the outcome, and a lot cheaper than paying Bodgit and Scarper for a trendy name not acceptable to the membership

[juster]

Surely this is a wonderful opportunity for a "member" competition - more satisfying for the membership because they will feel that they own the process together with the outcome, and a lot cheaper than paying Bodgit and Scarper for a trendy name not acceptable to the membership

I quite agree with this idea. Over the Christmas I was sorting through all of my old Journals, dating back to 1971! when there were two societies which later merged to form the BCSS. I had forgotten that, at the time, there was a members' competition to design the new badge, and we all voted to choose our preferred option. A good exercise in democracy and enabling members to feel part of the process.

[Chris43]

Personally I don't mind the name CactusWorld as I grow very, very few non-cacti, but I do recognise that "other succulents" have a very significant following which does appear to be growing.

I see the problem with naming is that we're trying to unify in one or a very few words a single family of exclusively succulent plants (Cacti) with plants of many plant families, very few of which are completely succulent. The challenge is to find a word that describes what we focus on without giving undue preference to one aspect or another.

Most of what we include are xerophytes, but there are other xerophytes outside our scope - like pineapple. Our plants all use CAM but there are others that do as well which are outside our scope - like many orchids. Neither of those seem to me to be usable as a name, either because they've been used or its hardly a catchy theme.

However, I have nothing better to offer as a new title, yet.......

[Tony R]

I see the problem with naming is that we're trying to unify in one or a very few words a single genus of exclusively succulent plants (Cacti) with plants of many genera, very few of which are completely succulent. The challenge is to find a word that describes what we focus on without giving undue preference to one aspect or another.

But the word 'Succulent' covers all our plants on which we focus.
Just a pity that Succulenta, Succulentopia, Sukkulenten, etc. have already been used by other Societies

[Cactusgirl]

The World of Succulents?

[ragamala]

The two-sentence penultimate paragraph of the editorial by Roy Mottram in CactusWorld 2006, 24(1), 4-5 sums up my feelings on this perfectly.

Phil - why not produce this in full rather than just refer to it?

"You will have noticed that your journal has now adopted the title of CactusWorld, which partly reflects our more internationally outward approach, and also offers a more friendly face to newcomers to the hobby and to connect with the public. Basically, CactusWorld exists to entertain and inform, while its sister yearbook Bradleya carries the more intellectually challenging material for the more serious student of succulents."

Make of that what you will. But hardly a perfect sales pitch for either publication, in my view.

[Jim_Mercer]

As CactusWorld recently appeared on HIGNFY there are more than 4 million people that now know the name so perhaps now is not the time for a change of name

[Al Laius]

A couple of good points in this discussion.

Jim is quite corrrct in saying that the title is now better known having been on TV, so maybe now is not the time to change it.

Having a competition is also a good idea and I shall bring it up at the next trustees meeting in early February. Whether a competition will produce many good and original ideas and whether we’ll end up with a consensus is another matter - but it’s worth a try.

Al

[el48tel]

.................. Having a competition is also a good idea and I shall bring it up at the next trustees meeting in early February. Whether a competition will produce many good and original ideas and whether we’ll end up with a consensus is another matter - but it’s worth a try ..............

Al

Think positive! It's always the best option ... I know ....an ex-editor! you'll be surprised by what you get ... the problem will be in the consensus (or lack of it) of the team charged with the responsibility of making the final choice.

[ragamala]

Having pondered this, and having no better suggestion to make, I came to the conclusion that CactusWorld is good. I hope any future survey/poll includes a "stay as it is" (aka Remain!) option.

I particularly like the March 2006 journal title which was headed "Welcome to...." CactusWorld. I can understand why this only appeared on the first of the the new name/format journals, but it is a warm welcoming message and makes sense of the CactusWorld title in a way I think is worth considering reinstating. It embraces not only the idea of content of the publication, but of a society which is friendly and inclusive.

I appreciate the points made about succulents being omitted, but if many non-experts think positive cactus and not so positive or what's that, succulents. I don't feel that misses a new audience.

I am not sure the HIGNFY argument is a strong one, if on release this produced a dozen new members, then this is not a huge number, and repeats are unlikely perhaps to add significantly. Nevertheless there is good sense in keeping a brand name.

The question seems to me how that brand name can be promoted to a new audience. To change a journal title is not necessarily the main priority as I see it. To promote the society - and its journal - may need some more attention given to ensuring eg that the BCSS comes to the top ranking for searches such as cactus and succulent (at least for UK searches). For that purpose CactusWorld is good, another reason for not changing perhaps. Having said that, results are already good for eg cactus world, cactus society, succulent society, but not so good for simple "cactus" or "succulent" which might merit attention - at least it may repay the effort more than a journal name change.

There is a good "product" here - the last issue was particularly impressive, with a splendid cover. If it ain't broke.........