A challenge for social media's 'irrelevant little clique'
I was away last week. I missed all the fun stuff! Like Josh & Jamie buying Stuff.co.nz and then winning Assignment and selling Fairfax and buying DDB. Or something like that.
I got back to far too many emails, but one missive in particular prompted this piece. It contained the assertion (from someone heavily involved) that the social media folk about town are at risk, without robust debate, of becoming an “irrelevant little clique”. Furthermore, a friend of mine is a self-confessed social media hypocrite. He bombs along to all the social media events but at the same time privately confides that he thinks everyone’s just repeating the same things over and over and sort of selling ice to Esquimaux.
Now as I’ve never been along to any of these functions I’m not going to comment on that, and such an assertion is not the point here. Stay with me, because we’re going on a little journey. For if it’s true (that’s an if there, an if, folks), I have a challenge for you clued-up social media types, because you have the goods and the smarts for this one.
Y’see, last week was adaptive snowsports week down south. If you aren’t familiar with adaptive snowsports, you can read the Otago Daily Times article here, witness what a good dose of airtime on a monoski looks like (at 2.35), or hit the adaptive website here.
I was prepared for the monoskiers to put me to shame – I’ve seen monoskiers before and they ski better, faster, and with more flair than I can ever hope to on two planks. But I was stoked to see the one-legged skiers, a visually impaired snowboarder who’s also a swimming champ, and more, lots more talent.
Less obvious on the slopes are those with communication difficulties. A couple of blokes had speech difficulties, with talking either difficult or impossible. One deaf guy was without anyone who could sign, meaning a ski lesson was out of the question, and communication for him was likewise tricky.
It struck a few of us just how rustic the communication methods are, particularly in the age of the iPad. The deaf guy gets around by using a series of small notepads and a pen to write down what he wants to say. (That’s fine in the pub at the end of the day but not so practical with ski gloves on, or when driving!) A few of the others have unwieldy machines they carry around to type out messages, which the reader can see on an LCD display. Check it – these machines are upwards of $10K. Not joking.
We noticed a couple of problems with these machines. Firstly, the expense, although it’s to be assumed it’s covered by ACC initially. Secondly, they don’t do anything much other than help the user communicate a single message (and I’m talking a message shorter than a tweet). Thirdly, they mark the user out as obviously disabled, which can often incite speakers to assume the disability is mental, not physical, and treat them accordingly.
At one point we started using someone’s iPhone in the pub to tap out messages, and our deaf friend asked what it was – he’d never seen one before and wasn’t confident using it. One of the guys using the message machines said he’s keen on an iPad and thinks it’s darn cheap, in comparison.
So what’s the challenge here? You’ve got a bunch of people who could hugely benefit from having an iPad and some tutoring on how to use it. It’s got to be a fairly lonely world dealing with communication difficulties, from something as simple as ordering a flat white to telling a funny story or having a relationship with someone. The iPad could not only work as a communication tool (and one that others will soon become familiar with) but also as a way to connect with other people.
So the challenge is twofold: One, for social media experts to perhaps fundraise for iPads for those with communication difficulties – because you can imagine ACC won’t be handing them out like lollipops – and to help users find their way around them and around social media so they can connect with others.
Two, for Air New Zealand to also come to the party and sponsor those with communication difficulties at next year’s festival. After all, it’s already spoken up in support of deaf issues. (If it could also fix the spelling mistake on the back of the apricot and yoghurt muesli bar it hands out on board, MC Grammar would be eternally thankful. Mint.)
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Email
Share
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Scoopit
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Latest
Comments and questions45
1. Well yes a lot of the SM things are rubbish because people think it's get rich quick and you magically absorb wealth like Zuckerberg and Jobs. The main question to ask is 'how much of your income comes from SM?' Very few people actually are billing in it and for good reason.
2. Good idea re subsidised iPads although not for first generation in my opinion. There are some really good med tech uses I've seen in the US so I hope we see them coming in this direction.
Here's my review if anyone cares http://www.3news.co.nz/The-iPad-Review-by-CJ-Lambert/tabid/311/articleID/166601/Default.aspx
"At risk of becoming"? Or have been since their inception? Unfortunately you have rules about comment length (and possibly content) around here so I'll save the rest of this response for everyone anon's friend: http://a.longreply.com/3211709 First commenter to name 5 of the local SMDs obliquely referenced in that response wins a free NBR digital subscription on this anon's bill. Or a bottle of Stoly.
I have a family member who teaches deaf and blind students. I understand from overseas information that iPads are already being hailed as tools for the blind due to the voice over accessibility options.
12.05 - SMDs???
01:31 - As the saying goes, if you don't know... you probably are one. SMD = social media douchebag. Google it for hilarity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQq2FXKigLc
@ Another Anon: truly great long reply. Sadly, naming all 5 really wasn't that hard.
what?
Can someoe please name the five in another long reply then?
I'd love to help too. Let's see what can happen ey....
I can get four out of the five, but the J and L one has me stumped.
But if you write the names down here, they'll be detected by the SMD's vanity Google alerts.
I would really really love it if all you muffins would email me and say "Yeahhhhh that's a mint idea let's get started how can we go about it let's have a beer and get this puppy on the road yeahhhh" rather than making fun of individuals in the social media scene.
A project like this might not win any awards at Cannes but it could make a HUGE difference in the lives of people affected by communication difficulties.
Anyone? An agency? A person? adhoc@nbr.co.nz
First, I should point out that adaptive techology is usualy NOT covered by ACC. ACC covers only adaptive technologies required because of a condition acquired through an injury/accident. Most hearing loss is either congenital or acquired through illness. Hence, ACC won't pay. They don't pay for TTY (teletext phone used by many Deaf individuals), for example.
I would be hesitant to suggest the iPad as a viable option. It's too big to be really practical. You can't just slip it in your pocket, and I suspect that many Deafies would just not be bothered carrying it around after a while.
An iPhone, or Android (not locked in to Apple's services...) or even a Blackberry are all good options for communication.
Most of my Deaf friends in the US have Blackberries and use it for texting as a form of communication with one another. One of them says it's better than a portable TTY because it allows them to txt with hearing family members and friends.
The two main issues are, in my opinion, education and funding. So definitely, finding a way to fundraise would be good (especially as ACC is NOT a viable funding avenue). But more importantly, educating people who are Deaf, deaf, or hard of hearing, and professionals working with them, about the possibilities coming from these technologies.
My 2 cents...
Thanks Nic.
By the way, Ben Gracewood is hosting a clearinghouse space for techy thoughts on this here:
http://www.ben.geek.nz/2010/08/adaptive-and-assistive-technology-help/
On Ben's site a commenter notes, "The technology is not the main issue, it’s the funding and the politics of implementing it fairly and effectively." Exactly. And here we see exposed exactly what is wrong with social media types - an over fascination with technology for it's own sake and an assumption that distributing a problem (in the sense of nattering about something) will solve it.
As usual this continues here: http://a.longreply.com/3167792
The ipod touch and ipad are truly fantastic for blind users. My husband is partially sighted and his ipod touch is indispensible, that combined with an Audible subscription means he can "read" books again. He'll be getting an ipad (once we've got the cash) as he can invert the colours, which makes it easier for him to read, and he can take it into work meetings. Say what you like about Apple, but their accessibility features are second to none.
That is brilliant. Well done.
Another Anon, you obviously have some good things to share. It's a shame you've smeared everyone in the emergent social media industry with the same brush and hidden behind anonymity. Would be great to have a genuine voice of dissent at our next Social Media Club event in September, if you can handle people disagreeing with you and calling you out on your factual errors. :)
If you're serious (or even any of the others cheering you on), I'd welcome your participation. There's free beer too! Hit me up at simon@sy-engage.com
The problem is that those who aren't interested in social media or who are "dissenters" won't ever come along to the club nights. They have better things to do.
Anon has hit the nail on the head.
but ... but ... there's FREE BEER!
Thanks Simon, but with all due respect (and jibes aside I do have some ;), unless you want to pass the tray around I'll have to decline as I'm not in Auckland. Yes - there is (digital) life south of the bombay hills... (or errr north of matakana... who knows where I am).
I respect the outreach, and those who have tried to focus this discussion on doing some good - that is actually awesome. My intent was directed by Hazel's original post, that "without robust debate [the local social media scene risks] becoming an 'irrelevant little clique'". I figured the egos of those personally jabbed were sufficient enough that they could be used in this sense.
I suspect I was right in some cases ;). p.s. Factual corrections welcome - blog it out!
How great that you met someone experiencing obvious difficulty, listened to what they had to say on it, and now having a go at finding a solution Hazel! (To the commenter claiming insult: did you actually read the article? The guy played with it, liked it, end of story).
I started Photographers for Charity last year, and though I'm hardly "big" enough to offer much on the Social Media front, I'd love to do what I can if this goes ahead (james@photoforcharity.org). I haven't played with the iPad much either, but seems your friend saw some great potential behind the idea.
As for viability and funding: Again, read the article people. The challenge put forward was for those involved with SM to generate this. This might actually be achievable, especially given what I've seen happen this last year already.
To our anon stick poker... Hi, I'm one of the "douchebags" who was in that helicopter.
We were trying something new, it was fun, & we learned plenty... one of the lessons was: Regardless of the tool used, humans are still humans when it comes to interpretation, and the ways we were presenting some of the info wasn't ideal... now we know, and so do many others... how is that anything other than a win for a whole bunch of people? Surely you're not suggesting every successful idea came about without some form of failure/mistake/accident along the way?
Also, I think you're missing a rather critical point: SM tools are just tools. Just one part of a huge arsenal that all of the people you labelled SMD's employ. I.e. None of the businesses you mention are using them as their sole means of interacting with customers, nor the sole channel for marketing their business. So Im a bit lost as to where the majority of your jibes come from sorry. Telecom/Voda did not just jump on bandwagons, & I don't recall any retail store or call center closures... Did someone not reply to your tweet? Did this upset you? Why did you not call them, email them, fill out an online form, go to a store...? With so many other "traditional" options available, why were you "maddened"?
For someone who appears so anti-SM, or at least anti toward the way some are using it, you sure seem to know a lot about what's going on (unfortunately just not enough of the reality/fact). The only way you could know much of these things is if you hold an account yourself... So, if you know so much about the "right way" to use these tools, perhaps a better use of your keen sense of black/white could be put to better use showing us all how successful you have been?
Surely this would serve to improve things considerably, and solve many of your problems... or is that an armchair I see you perched on? So how about it... lay some cards on the table, come out from behind your anon posts, and show us what a truly successful person you are and how you feel we should be looking to our futures.
Hazel, great idea. Thanks for not only sharing your experience, but actually taking it somewhere new to see what will happen.
I'm afraid I got a bit carried away on my keyboard too, so here's a link of my own: http://a.longreply.com/3166761
First bit is for you Hazel... Anon people, the rest is for you. I must say, it's just as interesting that the one's claiming it's all rubbish tend to be saying so anonymously... why? Were you also one of the people who said commerce enable websites would fail perhaps? Worried Google will help us giggle at you in 10yrs time along with Bill Gates' memory quote? Time to lighten-up folks.
Sorry... when I sent the response, it appeared it had not posted. So I used the method Anon ntroduced. The link is just a repeat of the above.
Wow this really shows why new zealand is not moving forward.... Tall poppy syndrome is in play big time... before pointing fingers know them first. as much as i hate social media talks, but i respect those who genuinely do it right and doing things to benefit the country as whole without financial rewards being the priority.
and also if you think about new zealand is small, all things we do are clique, even at parties
if i'd known this had legs...
1. I would have picked a better pseudonym. Oh the shame.
2. I would have bust out some more polished arguments - these were just the cheap-laugh ones. ;)
3. The use of telecom/voda customer service thing was just an illustration - I'm a very happy customer of one of those companies - who continue to provide brilliant support despite the distractions of social media. As with picking on the large personalities in the local scene to make a point, picking on how they use SM was for illustration purposes not for vendetta. (See because people do that, they don't bitch only for personal gain in the world outside social media...)
4. The helicopter thing is hilarious. Own it! And you point out your own mistake, "Regardless of the tool used, humans are still humans when it comes to interpretation". Which I've made as a point somewhere along what is becoming a robust-debate... I'd add a jab here that this lesson shouldn't be being learnt by anyone offering professional services/advice - that is 101. Why do we have practitioners offering advice who are relearning the basic lessons of the wider profession of marketing?
5. I'm sure I did at least make the precise argument that social media tools are just tools. I think in the 3rd longer reply I point out the problem being that SM practitioners have an overly limited set of tools.
So let's agree, social media isn't an activity.But if it isn't then how is 'social media guru' (or even consultant) a job title or someone a business would turn to? Social media is a set of sub-channels and a few not-actually-new consumer behaviours.
A metaphor to illustrate the situation. The way social media is treated by most companies, and by "social media gurus" is as if there existed the role of "newspaper guru". And companies went to them for anything related to newspapers. That is, if they wanted to place an advertisement (advertising). If they wanted to run a competition (marketing). If they wanted to send a press release for editorial consideration (PR). If they wanted to list products in the classifieds (sales). Meanwhile the public would be attending public lectures by the "newspaper guru" to learn techniques for getting their "letter to the editor" published so they could receive timely assistance (customer service).
But there isn't such a person is there. That'd be ludicrous and an ineffective means of utilising newspapers and conducting these activities. Each of these activities is conducted by a different person/group within an organisation as they all require separate skills and approaches. Most of which are well established and practiced by people who already learnt that if you drink too much you'll throw up.
Social Media is not, despite the word a "media". It is a set of sub-channels. e.g. "social network sites" (facebook et al), "non-mainstream media" (blogs), "word of mouth" (forums, SNS walls)... And through these any number of core business activities can be conducted, i.e. sales, customer service, advertising, marketing, PR. So yes, if you are regarding the activities that social media is useful for (the sub-channels) for your business as primarily being PR say then your PR team should deal with it. But actually, everyone should be dealing with it in some shape or form. But probably not bothering to call it social media.
1. "For someone who appears so anti-SM, or at least anti toward the way some are using it,"... Most definitely the latter. Social media is neither good nor evil, there are just poorly directed uses of it in-vogue, see above.
As for who I am... Anyone who asks me if it is me - I've admitted it to. I'm not particularly concerned with anonymity - especially as I see the community can deal with "robust debate" better than I thought it could. (Which was the original point in Hazel's article that prompted all this - and not mine.) I've met everyone we've had a laugh at the expense of here (and yes followed them on Twitter) and you're good people. But the anon who wrote to Hazel is correct, the social media scene (world wide, not just locally) is insular and poor at criticising itself and doing so typically pushes one out of the scene where you can be ignored, rather than engaging those inside with "robust debate".
I'll just address some of your points here:
* Of course PR and marketing departments need to learn and incorporate social media into their overall marketing mix, but are they? There's a lot of FUD that's stopping them doing that, that's why social media consultants are needed for the short term.
* While the job itself is actually best described as "a bit of education plus strategy plus change management plus group facilitation plus technology implementation (put at the end of the sentence for a reason)" it's a bit hard to brand it that way! Add to that the fact that demand is to know about social media I think it's a fairly good bait and switch to show people who want to know about social media all the other stuff they'll need to know in order to implement it successfully.
Wow. That was way too long a sentence. Look what you made me do :)
Just to clarify, I never meant to imply that an anecdote stood for a universal truth. That's patronising. But if talking about it means that someone might be more aware of communication difficulties, or someone might be inspired to learn sign language, or someone might end up less prejudiced, then I'm all for that.
And when I say iPad, you can take that to mean iPad, or tablet, or computerish device, or tablet in a tutu.
Don't forget to check out Ben's post on this: http://www.ben.geek.nz/2010/08/adaptive-and-assistive-technology-help/
Have really enjoyed following both sides of this. Simon's invitation to was heartwarming, though it was a bit like inviting an atheist to share their beliefs at a church.
Would love to see Media7 or The Ad Show pick this debate up. It's worth having.
Would totally be into the atheists sharing their beliefs in church too. If we can't do dialogue, what's the point of all these potentially dialogue-enriching tools? :)
We tried on the Ad Show but couldn't pull together enough atheists in time.
It'd be good territory for Media7 though.
Simon - I think you do a nice job of pointing out the difference between a good social media practitioner and a lousy one there. The problem being there is no correlation (well, perhaps a minor negative one) between those who have "social media guru" as their twitter bio and people who have this more mature attitude.
And for your average business stakeholder, all they have to go on when assessing which practitioner to "sit on the mat in front of" is "follow count". Which again, there is no correlation between quality and volume. (Again perhaps there is a negative one if anything, those who have time to tweet and follow clearly aren't working on client jobs!). This is why I picked on socialmedianz's "authorised consultant" idea in my original post - there are already organisations and people much more appropriate (experienced and skilled) to qualify the quality of marketing (etc) practitioners out there.
Social media is also not new at this point, so to excuse it by saying SMCs are "needed for the short term" - is incorrect. Though perhaps that is one of the purposes of this debate, as it gets more robust... to answer the question, "have social media approaches and knowledge matured to the point where they can be integrated "back" into the wider practices", e.g. marketing, pr, customer support etc... (As per my "newspaper guru" metaphor in previous post).
I still maintain there was never a reason for them to be separate, as SM was only ever new tools and sub-channels never a new media/um. By taking the attitude that there are new and unknown behaviours out there, we risk missing seeing them for what they are - old behaviours in new clothing, that skilled practitioners can merely adjust their _tactics_ for (whilst the _strategies_ remain sound).
But we can see clear parallels between that argument and the separation of advertising agency versus digital agency debate that still rages - with arguments on either side of integration 15 years later. I think my last two posts explain my thinking there, I'd like to draw a diagram but a.longreply won't cooperate.
To take it back to the charitable issue for a minute - I'm sure we're all still keen to see something more than debate and LOLs come out of this thread. So for my part I have $500NZ I'll give to whatever project comes out of that discussion. If nothing eventuates by September then I'll give the money to the national Foundation for the Deaf directly.
p.s. I won't bother a.longreplying this as cheeky Hazel pasted my last one into a comment (Hazel, its all about pageviews eh? ;)) Thanks for housing the discussion though Hazel - much appreciated.
...and I think you've got to the nub of the argument. Are we in a fundamental change, or is it just the surface technology changing? I think it's a fundamental shift, and it's not just social media, it's the whole damn internet that's changed economics, marketing, etc etc, and in the big scheme of things it is very, very new.
People like you who make stuff online, and those of us heavily involved in social media, think that it's not new and kinda mainstream already but the reality is for most people it's still a foreign country where everyone speaks funny. I can't speak for other social media consultants, but I see it as my job to get people ready for the future that is already here but unequally distributed.
I just want to echo your thanks to Hazel for hosting this discussion. This has been very stimulating.
Yep I put it in the main body of the comments - I wondered if we had an issue that prevented long comments from going up, but it seemed to have worked ok. Page views, page views, how do I love thee? I love thee to the depth and breadth and height Web 2.0 can reach.
Another Anon, if you wouldn't mind, any chance you could email me? adhoc@nbr.co.nz (Fully confidentially, of course!)
Not for any particular reason other than that I'm curious as to who you are, and I'd also like to be able to contact you to get your perspective for future stories.
Most clients would be unhappy about being on the receiving end of a 'bait and switch', Simon, there's no 'fairly good' way to do it. Selling additional services is one thing, taking a contract for a minor consulting job and milking it for more than it's worth or for something else entirely is another.
Describing your job as a bait and switch scam betrays exactly the marketing naivety that Another Anon was talking about in their first post.
change "milking it for more than it's worth" to "adding more than they knew to ask for". It's called education.
Simon you've actually seen the diagram I think - we presented at the same conference and I threw it up. Actually I think I also threw up that William Gibson quote you mentioned just now also, "the future is here, it is just unevenly distributed". Spooky ;)
I am very wary of anyone suggesting that technology has caused new behaviours - unless by behavior you mean something at the level of "people tweet". Yes, that is new. But "people talk to their circle of friends and acquaintances about both positive and negative experiences" is not - people are just exhibiting the actual behaviour/drive using a new set of tools. And it is much more useful, once you get past the initial thrill of newness, to create your strategies based on understanding these deeper drivers and behaviours than simply following the eyeballs/buzz.
Otherwise you spend all your time focusing on a new tool's minutiae and not really achieving your ends. e.g. Twitter (which i've inadvertently given a right blasting, as whipping boy, in this thread) is not appropriate for all businesses or all business tasks - and will not scale as a successful execution for many as every business on high street try to use it in the same way. (i.e. Giapo succeeds as an early adopter to a captive audience, not because his twitter "strategy" is necessarily business-model changing.)
I'm not denying that the Internet has transformed many things about life - and I'm happy to see many of these ways have been positive and benefited the consumer/audience/little-people etc as much as they have given businesses new and better ways to fleece us. (Its the wonderful mutually beneficial strategies that I like to think some of us spend our time on more than the fleecing!)
Two major Buts.
1. I don't credit the Internet with triggering the shift in our approach to conversation through (remix) media. It began, for many cultures, decades prior - and if anything this shaped the form the Internet took. But that's (sort of) a side issue.
2. It really isn't new... it's actually really old. And that is why "social media" seems so appealing to many, it harks back to the way our brains are tuned to conduct conversation, to think... the way we engaged in "commerce" for millennia. The past few hundred years have interrupted that, and now we're back on course. Yes, thanks to the technology and some economic/environmental realities.
So "preparing people for the future (is now)" misses a major trick. And has the quality of making people feel like their previous skills are redundant. Good marketing people are good marketing people - whatever the time and the tool. And they're the right people to look at a new channel or tool and identify how to use it - not some people whose sole qualifications are being early adoptions or "having the time to tweet".
Not that some of those people can't be one and the same. The overlap seems extremely uncommon though - hence the SMD label. Back to the original point, that the need to cluster together as social media practitioners is having the exact opposite effect intended - and allowing shallow metoo "gurus" to crowd out the clever practitioners.
Sorry for the long delay in replying. Lots of offline stuff to do this weekend :)
I'm 99% sure I know who you are, and if so, I loved that presentation, and agree with it!
Yes, what's new is also what's very, very old - and that's the thing, it's older than any one of us (in the western world, at least) remember. Pre-industrial market models need some learning. That's my take on it anyway.
Giapo takes some looking at. He's doing far more than using Twitter as a mass broadcast to a captive audience (I don't think there is such a thing as a captive audience in social media). He's celebrating his community in a way that was possible but extremely difficult before social media tools. He's also starting to tap into the co-creation possibilities of the tools by crowdsourcing local organically grown fruit from individuals.
As for your last point, you may have a valid point - only it's a lot easier to see these colleagues as shallow me-too "gurus" from a distance. Of the people you alluded to, I can't recall any of them claiming themselves to be gurus. I've met them all and they all have something to offer. I don't feel diminished by association with them.
On the contrary, I see significant demand from potential clients to learn more about social media. That's what people are asking questions about, so it would seem a little silly to ignore it.
(Having said that, I see this interest is likely to change - and we've put it out there that we'll have a different descriptor by the end of the year: http://ijump.co.nz/what-do-you-do-let-your-customers-tell-you/ )
I'm not sure if there's a lot more to say - it feels like we have gotten to the nub of where we disagree, and I don't know if there's any more persuading in either direction to be done.
What's really cool is that if for any reason I can't find a real live human to join the debate next month, there are some good points here to add.
Thanks Simon. Good luck in your search for a real live human!
I'll leave Simon to have the last word there - and just give respect for the "robust debate", thanks Simon :)
You can contact me on: anotheranon.nz@gmail.com - or my actual email address. ;)
Oh and if anyone else wants to contact me, same goes. Thoughts, counter-opinions, virtual bags-of-flaming-dog-poo all welcome.
Tony G posted a thoughtful post over on the Digital Leadership Blog: http://digitalleadershipgroup.co.nz/2010/08/11/being-anti-social-is-short-sighted/
Its worth it just for the comment about "the pioneering days of 2008".
Tis a good post from Tony G (how's that for a rap star name?!). One of the few who pens pieces that are readable right to the last word. More, please.
I'd like to point out that Vaughn is not the social media hypocrite mentioned in the post, and my intention was never to point the finger at individuals. Personally I don't care if people are into social media - so long as they take the same live-and-let-live approach to those who aren't. It's postmodernism, baby, and it freaks me out.
No one said V was he - just that it was prescient. ;)
And of course you don't care if people are into social media, or how they utilise it - you're just reporting from the side-lines. To people actually in the trenches, poor practitioners are money out of their pockets and one more client that needs to be waterboarded and retrained on how to do it right after a bad engagement with an SMD.
Relativism? For shame... Post modernism was discredited in all but the art world decades ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair - favourite incident in the decline). Now there's a fun debate - is it whisky o'clock yet? First round is on me if you promise not to mention socialmedia till closing time.
That is an excellent link.
Whisky? I'm in a Chardonnay phase. Not sure if I'm late to the party, or an early adopter. (Don't answer that.)
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below