Commenting on Response from the OPA
small guy
I vote for-
JOSH!!!!!!
Posted on 21 Jan 2004 12:40
Andy Hadfield
gAL vs. OPA-
Perhaps a point to start off... No website that can pay a R20,000 membership fee to a cosmetic organisation is operating on a 'small' or 'restricted' budget as stated. In fact, most of the members of the OPA, I'm predicting will be those content portals in South Africa operating at a huge loss, yet scene as necessary brand extensions by the owners. Then some perspective... gAL.co.za, arguably one of South Africa's most pentrative youth online portals, would/could not pay the entry fee. Somehow, I just don't think it's necessary either. Andy Hadfield [Managing Director] [gAL.co.za]
Posted on 21 Jan 2004 14:09
RD
Old boy's club-
OPA seems to be an Old Boy's club trying to bully advertisers into only using their handful of monopolistic members. Smacks of unfair practice. If they do not represent all online publishers they cannot claim to represent the industry. It is simply a facade. Another useless "Association", a word that is fast becoming an expletive.
Posted on 21 Jan 2004 17:33
Online Editor
Big Business Strikes Again-
The OPA's justifications for their stance merely confirm what Josh Adler was saying in the first place. The OPA is by 'big business' for 'big business' and is just another atypical attempt by an 'old boys club' to secure their market position and revenue. In a world where all things are equal an organisation like the OPA should be specifically aimed at assisting the entrepreneurial spirit of the internet instead of specifically and deliberately excluding that sector of the market. We up-n-coming online publications look forward to the day when the OPA and its 'big business' puppet masters get swallowed in the inevitable bureaucracy of their own greed.
Posted on 22 Jan 2004 10:41
Jacques DeepSPiN
Just prove them wrong...-
I'm confident that a number of the current smaller market participants will grow up to be one of the bigger players in the near future. When this happens they will most certainly not join this exclusive fat cat organization, which in turn will fail to represent their section of the market that they originally did. So it is only a matter of time until this organization will fail.
Posted on 22 Jan 2004 12:53
pete de bruin
I agree with www.gal.co.za-
You have to look at what the OPA is currently doing for the online industry in SA besides promoting the interests of its members; the answer is quite simple - absolutely nothing! Its heritage is one of a toothless body that was powerless when confronted with an issue requiring a strong position. So what did they do; they changed the name to OPA and enlisted the same members to make themselves look good. There are a bunch of 'smaller' sites out there who are making money; I suggest you carry on your business as usual and dont expend an more unnecessary energy.
Posted on 22 Jan 2004 14:02
Charles Miller
Get real OPA-
What a load of tripe. I think the last vestiges of credibilty have just left the building. The danger is that a name such as the Online Publisher's Association creates the illusion that it is inclusive. Bah! Perhaps change it to OPA for Profit, OPA for Big Companies, or OPA for Better Advertising Revenues. At least there is some semblance of transparency then. Hopefully the industry is grown up enough to spot the blatant rip-off a mile away. I know the small guys are ...
Posted on 22 Jan 2004 15:55
Anonymous
Oh stop whinging!-
I guess it’s just as I always suspected – these internet companies are a joke. If you can’t afford R20 k per year – then you’re a TINY business. A single TV flighting costs more than that. Trouble is – this is a business that 2 kids can set up with dad’s computer. Clearly it’s time the kids went out and got a job.
Posted on 23 Jan 2004 12:38
Anonymous
Oh stop whinging!-
I guess it’s just as I always suspected – these internet companies are a joke. If you can’t afford R20 k per year – then you’re a TINY business. A single TV flighting costs more than that. Trouble is – this is a business that 2 kids can set up with dad’s computer. Clearly it’s time the kids went out and got a job.
Posted on 23 Jan 2004 12:39
Dad's Kid
Thanks for the comment Fat Cat-
Your old school business attitude makes you a prime candidate for OPA membership! And, with that attitude you'd better start watching your profit margins carefully because we online entrepreneurs are going to be gobbling up your slice of the pie before you know it. There are plenty of today's leading businesses (particularly on the internet)who couldn't get 20K together when they started but now generate turnovers that greedy corporate empires would kill for. We're coming for YOU!
Posted on 23 Jan 2004 12:55
Who's whinging?
I guess you are contributing to some boring old job then?-
The Internet is a new media. It therefore requires excellent entrepreneur skills to make a successful sustainable business, Why pay 20 gorillaz to some stupid excuse for an association which won't help you one bit. Rather plough that cash back into providing users with relevant contant, thus building a more successful business. Only the weak business concepts need the OPA to legitimise their pathetic business models. They are usually backed by bigger companies, with the Internet arm actually subsidised by the bircks and mortar business and running at a loss. The actuall successful publishers have a very viable business model thank you very much. You obviously know nothing about the industry you tosser.
Posted on 23 Jan 2004 16:17
The Truth
Wake up!-
Paying the R 20 000 might not be a problem for the smaller companies. however, acceptance to the OPA, even after meeting all requirements one has almost no chance of acceptance unless your suites match the one's they wearing.
Posted on 26 Jan 2004 13:00
Joanne Scholtz
An agency perspective...-
For over a year now, there have been no “official” traffic figures released by an online industry body. For over a year now, only a handful of websites have advised AC Nielsen (AdEx) of their spend. Spend by brand has never been mentioned. These two basic measurements are supplied by Electronic (TV and Radio) and Print (Press and Magazines) and not by the most “measurable” medium around. I wonder why? I appreciate that it takes time to identify the issues, consider options to resolve the problems and implement the solutions, therefore, we will wait for the Red Sherriff figures and continue to support the OPA initiative. All good things have to start somewhere. I am concerned about the exclusive perception around the OPA and at this point would like to highlight the following: 1. R20 000 per annum = R1 667 per month, which is not too bad. 2. The larger organisations do benefit. Fees are not structured per title. 3. The fees do not seem to be the only obstacle. Perfectly legitimate candidates are turned down for not having enough advertising. I would like clarity on this. 4. Not ALL OPA members are “old boys club” and I’m very concerned about this perception; the credibility of the association is critical. As advertisers, we require industry bodies to exist for the following reasons: a) To set a standard of professionalism b) To set a standard of measurement c) To liaise, debate and contribute (not necessarily financially) to related industry bodies such as the MFSA, SAARF and the AMF. It is not recommended that two bodies exist within a single industry, but if the “smaller” more niche environments are blatantly being excluded, then it may be time to consider your own body, with your own mandate, objective, etc. Should you take this route, I have one request: align yourselves with the OPA standards and measurement to ensure a single industry norm.
Posted on 26 Jan 2004 16:56
Anonymous
OPA member-
As a founding member of the OPA I have the following comments: From a business perspective the industry was in a state where: 1.) Everyone was meausuring differently 2.) Nothing was comparable 3.) ABIS, then ABC-e was a dismall failure 4.) 'Online' was regarded by advertisers as untrustworthy. The OPA came about as a great opportunity to solve these business problems. It was prudent and it made sense. The organisation follows the protocols and the norms adopted by similiar bodies in the UK and USA. The benefits will trickle down to many of the smaller non-members too. The marketing message to advertisers is that the Internet can really be of value as an advertising medium and our commitment is to prove this belief. This drive MUST benefit the entire industry. It is not a case of fat cats. OPA members are competitors yet we sit around a table because we saw that it was prudent to solve common problems that stand in the way of industry growth. - problems that we could not hope to address individually. I would rather pay R20 000 a year membership than pay R60 000 a year for PWC to audit my log files for ABC-e submission - only to find out that nobody takes it seriously anyway.
Posted on 27 Jan 2004 11:44
Anonymous
Lounge suites?-
Is that lounge suites or office suites dumbo? Should you even be in publishing if you can’t spell?
Posted on 28 Jan 2004 10:43
Anonymous OPA member
Why the confrontational, unprofessional approach?-
Instead of the smaller players immediately opting for a confrontational, emotional approach -- why not seek a meeting with the OPA to clarify positions and get an understanding of the issues, with a view of getting the OPA to understand your position. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding? Why not talk about it? Perhaps if this kind of mature approach was taken, then the issues could be explored and a compromise could be reached or even a new solution proposed. Everyone on the OPA is rational and has the best interests of the industry at heart. Believe me the OPA would be concerned if there was a developing perception that it was "exclusive". The OPA is really dedicated to uplifting the internet industry as a whole which has benefits for everyone. We are all in this together. Silly fighting and confrontation does not help yourselves or the industry as a whole. Why not make it work for you????
Posted on 29 Jan 2004 10:13
Anonymous OPA member
Why the confrontational, unprofessional approach? -
Instead of the smaller players immediately opting for a confrontational, emotional approach -- why not seek a meeting with the OPA to clarify positions and get an understanding of the issues, with a view of getting the OPA to understand your position. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding? Why not talk about it? Perhaps if this kind of mature approach was taken, then the issues could be explored and a compromise could be reached or even a new solution proposed. Everyone on the OPA is rational and has the best interests of the industry at heart. Believe me the OPA would be concerned if there was a developing perception that it was "exclusive". The OPA is really dedicated to uplifting the internet industry as a whole which has benefits for everyone. We are all in this together. Silly fighting and confrontation does not help yourselves or the industry as a whole. Why not make it work for you???? Anonymous OPA member [29 Jan 2004 10:13]
Posted on 29 Jan 2004 10:15
Stoned donkey
Paternalistic attitude-
This is exactly the paternalistic snobby attitude we are talking about with the OPA. Josh's article was an attempt to open debate and get an answer from the OPA. We are not confrontational. We want answers. The OPA is definitely considered exclusive. It is not representative of the industry and to develop exclusive standards means that the members will competitively create standards that are to their own benefit, leaving any other players at andisadvantage. Membership should be free. Affilitation and Certification should cost money. So the whole industry contributes to the standard setting, then if you qualify, you pay up to be able to stick an OPA badge or certificate on your site. Simple really.
Posted on 29 Jan 2004 15:53
see stoned donkey comment
pfft-
Why anonymous? Are you embarassed to be a member of such an upstanding prestigious club?
Posted on 29 Jan 2004 15:56
Anonymous
good donkey-
Totally agree with your statement: "Membership should be free. Affilitation and Certification should cost money." The mere fact that this hasn't been considered shows the exclusive intention. You cannot even register for a Newsletter from the OPA.
Posted on 31 Jan 2004 17:36
MIO supporter
We are a member of Proudly South African, not the other way around??????-
Did Ms Vitale actually read Josh' article?? As someone said - if you can't spell, you shouldn't be in publishing... I say: If you can't comprehend, you shouldn't be in publishing... I thought "The cherry on top for me is around the OPA's recent membership to Proudly South African." was pretty clear... why choose to 'clarify' when all you're doing is rubbing mud all over? B)
Posted on 11 Aug 2004 23:30