ry sa th r digital 5 3 ive n n Inside this issue: A Retrospective: Road & Track ‘s Coverage of Opel 1968-1975 Volume DG, Issue 02 Digital Prototype #2, 2015 ? The “Missing Opel Book” Perhaps the best Opel books in terms of page count and value, are the "Portfolio" paperbacks that include original drive tests and other coverage drawn from numerous magazine articles published many years ago. Portions of those were re-printed in older Opel Club issues, but contrary to an impression that may have been given, they do not contain all there is to know! Recently a news article appeared about unpublished original auto magazine notes, photos, and other materials, which were being made available for public inspection at a university archive. This brought back memories in particular of Opel-related coverage from Road and Track magazine, with a focus on the peak US-export Opel era of 1968-1975. Unfortunately, inquiries to the archive revealed that no Opel-related materials apparently survived to make it through processing by staff for this special collection. This compounds an apparent slight by existing publishers, who compiled R&T articles for numerous other makes, but apparently did not find their Opel coverage worthy of a book edition! What we did get, was some brief internal correspondence concerning advertising rates in the early 1970's, combined with a analysis of overlaps of editorial coverage with ads (for several product manufacturers, including Opel). The actual documents were heavily restricted from use, per terms that are commonly applied to vintage materials by archives nowadays. (Some of the terms of those restrictions, are on a back page, for your information and possible amusement). This opened a narrow legal window, for a critical re-evaluation of a sampling of ads and editorial notes concerning Opel cars, as well as vintage aftermarket products made for them, within exclusions provided by present-day copyright statutes for materials distributed without cost online. So we revisited a stack of old-time R&T issues, featuring lots of writing and “eye-candy” from teams of automotive industry professionals, to give our readers a glimpse into the superior level of quality that a “free” digital-version Blitz could provide (versus overpriced & money-losing print). R&T has its own unique and distinguished history since it's late 1940's inception, as one editor put it "...we pride ourselves not only giving you the facts, but also in presenting them to you in a manner that has some literary quality.." A bit more about the background of the time frame we’re focusing on here, appears on a following page (after the editorial). “Why not ‘Car and Driver”? GM’s ire was aroused, by C&D’s evaluation of the then-new 1968 Kadett wagon, amongst the background of an automotive junkyard! In response, GM limited their cooperation with Note: Marketing #101 the magazine, including a withdrawal of advertising. Why advertise it (if it can’t even be spelled correctly)? Opelclub.com ©2015 Editorial Going into OMC's Annual Meeting for 2015, it's important that while we celebrate our 35 years as a continuously active club, we also reflect on areas where recent actions affecting OMC show that changes are also needed. What is advocated here is more active oversight and closer direction on the part of OMC's officer corps. With that in mind, selected areas for improvement are emphasized below. (1) Integrity OMC was founded on this principal, as our club was founded $PENT based on the goal of acting to ensure our long-term survival. Since then, "saying what we mean, and meaning what we say" BALANCE as a practice has provided assurance to Opel owners that OMC will continue to act to deliver just what members pay for. Recently, a change in officers has led to a changes in performance, where (among other concerns) our newsletters no longer carry a GONE ! regular dateline, selected by-laws are being by-passed, and our Almost 40% of OMC’s treasury hard-earned treasury has become the target for plunder balance, lost in just the past 2 years. (benefitting personal interests over that of OMC). According to our Treasurer, about 40% of our financial balance has been lost in just the past 2 years. This happened from an acceptance of inaccurate cost estimates (that led to a 300% price increase for printing of each individual newsletter issue—while our membership count rose only 10-15%). It's also anyone's guess now, to know just when the next Blitz issue will be released and how many pages will be in it (all at a cost to the club). Appeals to remedy these realities have led to division, including attempts of mis-characterization of these questions as mere "personal" disagreements. The question here is: Is it time, for OMC to impose size and cost limits on Blitz issues? (2) Professionalism In terms of editorial standards, OMC has tried to take the "high road" over the years. In practice, this means we respected the premiums our membership paid us, by: Providing original materials not available elsewhere, providing a fair balance of commentary on issues critical to members and the club, honoring member's individual privacy and rejecting submissions that were primarily commercial in nature. Recently in our newsletters, however, we've instead seen overtly biased statements and factual errors in support of just one officer’s point of view, disparagement of sources of alternative points-of-view, violation of the personal privacy of our former members in a "roster," Editorial Standards? as well as re-direction of OMC member's financial contributions to As an example: A same exact "advertorials" (reprints of materials also found on the internet) page was reprinted at which benefit both non-OMC and personal interests. OMC’s expense, six times in 2014! OMC has been asked to support this direction with a circulated claim that the Blitz was in danger of non-publication a couple years ago - a statement that was never true. (The actual statement was there would be more "retrospective" coverage, such as that which follows). As an externally-recognized organization, shouldn’t OMC aspire to a “journalistic” standard in its content? What is asked now is: Can OMC's officers better "edit" inappropriate materials from the Blitz? (3) Social Media/Internet Policies Our print-version readers may not be as aware of this, but criticisms of OMC have been circulated online. In a thread titled "OMC vs. everyone else," OMC was derisively characterized as "a club in name only" and as a "secret society," in postings by one of OMC’s own officers (which was not accompanied by a disclaimer, such as “/s” for sarcasm or humor). Other online actions included redirection of an internal club document (submitted by an OMC officer for Blitz publication) for unrestricted public viewing on a non-OMC discussion board, critical diatribes, and release of usage rights to numerous Blitz cover images from OMC to Facebook. Members who have read some of the referenced comments report being embarrassed and insulted, and it's hard to see how this can possibly benefit OMC. There are no enforced standards for accuracy or honesty in online venues, and in fact it's far from a two-way street. It’s no secret that the greater internet has evolved into a venue for marketers of all types, including a segment variously described as flippers, hucksters, con artists, and the like. Persons new to Opels have reported being confused by a deluge of inaccurate information now found elsewhere online, including that provided for sales purposes—which is where a return to OMC’s practice of providing balanced and factual commentaries (such as advertising disclaimers) for free online could help. Unfortunately, self-critical messages regarding OMC instead expose us to influence from self-interested persons out there in the Opel world, who are known for drawing in others through tactics of manipulation and disparagement. Recent interactions of this nature have caused OMC to be "trolled" (meaning being subjected to unwarranted criticism and self-serving demands), for the benefit of persons who are not acting to prioritize the best interests of OMC. Continued participation in these venues in this manner almost certainly would be contrary to the "goodwill" requirements stated in OMC's by-laws (Article II, Section 2). As a club now requiring a premium for membership, there should be a realization that we aren’t going to attract more than a percentage of those who are currently accessing their information online, and that universally trying to please everyone there is more likely to just continue to excessively cost OMC itself. That is why it is proposed that OMC instead position itself as a higher-level “alternative” to the lowered- standards of communications regarding Opels (compared to what is now found in some places online). The plan visualized by the “digital prototype” here, represents practical action to phase-in a “free” club membership option, in a way that would both benefit OMC as well as the Opel community at large. Right now, it would be hard to consider OMC’s social media presence as being done right, and it’s truly sad to see the efforts, reputation, finances, and proud legacy of OMC’s 35 years and (almost) 1,000 historic members left up for grabs (by a form of what could be characterized as “elder abuse”), particularly when better choices exist. Regarding how OMC is presented on Social Media and the Internet, it could be asked: Could OMC be better represented on social media (than it is now)? Should the OMC Blitz return to being hosted on our official website at www.opelclub.com (to avoid confusion generated by distribution via a private website, which OMC does not control)? Should OMC's officers also expand their oversight, to oversee our social-media and internet efforts as well? In the meantime, please enjoy OMC’s retrospective of “The Missing Opel Book” in the following pages.