I won’t speak much about the game. We played better than I thought we would, could not take our chances and lost by a very narrow margin to a better-ranked team. Sometimes you win the close ones. Sometimes you lose them. That’s test match rugby at the highest level.

We cannot change the past and instead must look to the future of SA rugby. To be honest, I’m incredibly excited – the future is BRIGHT! We have outstanding talent and enviable depth at our disposal – the only question is how we choose to manage that talent in future. That then becomes a conversation about who SARU will select to succeed coach P Divvy.

I am a big fan of Allister Coetzee, the man Jake White believed should have succeeded him. But Allister will need the support of international brains, as Jake White found in Eddie Jones, and local talismen too. The likes of Rassie Erasmus come to mind.

The legends of John Smit, Victor Matfield, Fourie Du Preez, Bryan Habana and co. have likely had their best opportunity to win another World Cup and if our intention is to achieve that in Japan in 2015 we need to say thank you to them and look forward. If it were up to me, and fitness were not a question, I would play the following 22 tomorrow:

1. Beast Mtawarira
2. Bismarck du Plessis
3. Jannie du Plessis
4. Josh Strauss
5. Andries Bekker
6. Heinrich Brussouw
7. Schalk Burger (c)
8. Willem Alberts
9. Francois Hougaard
10. Patrick Lambie
11. Lwazi Mvovo
12. Frans Steyn
13. Jacque Fourie
14. JP Pietersen
15. Gio Aplon

16. Chiliboy Ralapele
17. Gurthro Steenkamp
18. Danie Roussouw
19. Francois Louw
20. Ruan Pienaar
21. Juan de Villiers
22. Juan de Jongh

A mix of youthful talent and experienced campaigners, I think this 22 contains most of the names that, all things being equal, should take us to 2015 with a realistic chance of regaining our crown. That does depend heavily on SARU and the coaching staff they choose though, which as always should be entertaining to watch!

Regardless of what happens I remain a fan to the bitter (or sweet) end.

I love film. I actually studied film for a year or so before, ahem, dropping out, but my passion for the medium remains. My favourite past time, when I have the time, is to pop past the Absolutely Fabulous DVD Nouveau store down the road and pick up a classic off their “Must See” shelf. Over the last few months I’ve enjoyed IMDB Top 250 regulars like 12 Angry Men, Goodfellas, Cinema Paradiso and many more.

So you’ll understand that when one of our clients, Turner Broadcasting, presented their “Pop-Up Cinema” concept to us and asked us how we could promote it via their social media channels – you can follow them on Twitter at @TCMAfrica – I was pretty stoked. The Pop-Up Cinema concept is loosely based on Secret Cinema, and is in essence a celebration of classic film in a different location each time, for a select group of individuals that are either invited or who pick up on the event via online channels and the grapevine and RSVP to attend.

The inaugural @TCMAfrica Pop-Up Cinema was held last week at Arts on Main in the middle of Jozi – an awesome venue – and was non-stop fun from start to finish. I arrived to a giggling gaggle of students draped in scarecrow, witch and tin man outfits (no prizes for guessing the movie, and therefore the theme for the night, was The Wizard Of Oz) and once I’d collected my goodie bag, popcorn and sweets, settled down to watch the movie.

Besides the fact that it’s really hard to go wrong with an entertaining classic like Wizard of Oz, the evening was an a chilled one spent with really cool people in a great environment, and I’d highly recommend (because it was a jol, and not just because they’re a client), that you try and attend the next one, even if only for the free popcorn!

A big thank you to @TCMAfrica for the invitation – I can’t wait for the next one!

When he dies messages of condolence and sympathy will flood in. Wreaths will be laid, memorial services will be held and millions, maybe billions of people around the world will mourn one of the greatest men who ever lived. His life – and more specifically the actions that shaped his life – have earned such a send-off.

Last week Friday I was called to Benoni after my gran passed away in the company of the people she loved most. She was 89, and had lived a most remarkable life. This was no more evident than in her funeral on Wednesday – an event that was not clouded by regret, but illuminated by celebration. Her life was such that she had no unfinished business.

She was gracious beyond reason. She faced every challenge that life threw at her – two bouts of cancer, a World War, the loss of her husband after only 7 years of marriage – with admirable strength and resolve, and an unshakeable faith that anchored it all in place.

I see so many parallels in the grace she showed others, and the gratitude she expressed for every moment she had on this earth, to the life of Nelson Mandela. It’s not for their achievements that we hold these special people in such high esteem – it’s for their actions. Actions that fly in the face of what the world tells us is right, or normal. Actions that defy logic. Actions that change the fabric of society.

When Madiba dies… wait, screw that… BEFORE Madiba dies, seek to honour him and those that are like him in this world by not just sending out a compassionate tweet, or updating your Facebook status to “RIP Tata”. Seek to honour him by ACTING abnormally. ACT with grace, compassion and forgiveness:

Write that letter to that person who you need to make peace with.

Smile at strangers.

Give something away – something that is of value to you.

Stop collecting things and start collecting memories.

Love without fear.

I figure if I can do these things, if I can change the way I act and be just a little more like the kind of person Nelson Mandela is, and my gran was, then I am truly honouring them. The minister who officiated my gran’s funeral said, “people only die when we stop talking about them”. The lives of my gran and Nelson Mandela will best be honoured when we try and act like them.

The interesting thing is that we’ve built our friendship, and I dare say common respect for each other, despite the fact that there is a glaring difference between us; I am a Christian – a follower of Jesus – and he’s a “militant atheist” (to quote Rich himself). Rich is not shy to express his opinion(s) either – and he always makes a compelling argument. This post is a response to a recent debate that started on Twitter after I retweeted the following Phillip Yancey (I have no explanation for his hairstyle) quote: “I left the church because I found so little grace there. I came back because I found grace nowhere else.”

I retweeted it specifically because I identified with Yancey’s experience of the church, and also because having read some of his literature, I understand the definition of grace in the context that Yancey uses it. Rich took exception to the quote, saying “how sad for you (and Yancey). I find grace all over the place. Open your eyes/mind”. And so a debate ensued.

In the interest of not clouding Twitter with our argument, I decided to explain what I meant here. Rich felt that I was making a sweeping statement about the “un-churched” (by which I presume he means people that don’t go to a church), implying that if you don’t go to church you’re unable to display grace. This was certainly not my intention at all.

There are three things about the quote I want to pick up on that will hopefully paint a clearer picture of what I was saying. Firstly, the quote does not state that “people find grace nowhere else”, it spoke specifically of Yancey’s personal experience. I shared his sentiments, having worked in the church and belonged to churches for many years and being surprised at just how ungracious a place the ‘body of Christ’ can be in reality. This was not an attempt at educating anyone, pointing fingers at anyone or even making a general statement about anyone – it was simply a quote that stood out to me as representative of my journey. That’s my first point, Rich – this was not at all meant to be a statement in general, and I apologise if it was taken as so.

Secondly I want to talk about the definitions of ‘grace’ and ‘church’. How you react to this particular quote revolves primarily around how you understand these terms. Rich was unimpressed when I said that our definitions may be different, as he believes that “Grace is grace… good will, caring, compassion. All those things exist everywhere.” I couldn’t agree more on that point Rich – I’ve experienced goodwill, caring and compassion everywhere and on a daily basis. But I said GRACE for a reason – because although grace incorporates things like goodwill, caring and compassion on one layer, for me it has a far deeper meaning and implication. Without wanting to get too theological, my very simple explanation for my definition of grace is something like unconditional love. Or, to use one of the definitions in the list that Rich provided, “the freely given, unmerited favor and love of god.” That’s my definition of grace, and I don’t expect it to be Rich’s, I simply expect him to understand that that is the context I used the word in.

On a personal note my entire Christian journey has been characterised by a struggle (and now I’m really sharing) to understand the concept of grace. For some reason it is very difficult to understand why God would love me without me earning that love. This struggle plays out in my relationship with God and with others – I always feel that I need to do something, or be someone, to be loved outright. In my relationship with God and in community with people who share my beliefs I have at times tasted just a small sample of that grace, and it is the reason I still believe what I do. It has been asked of me more than once, “why does someone as smart as you believe in God?”… My response is, because I have experienced his gracious love in an undeniably tangible way. That is my reality, and I cannot escape it.

Then, I mentioned that I wanted to explain my understanding of the word ‘church’ too. Church, as I understand it, is not a building. It’s not a set of rules, dogma and legalism arranged into various denominations either. I could care less for religion – its laws, its institutions, its rules. I believe that ‘church’ is a community of people who believe what you believe and want to share, learn, grow and worship with you in that belief. And ideally in a state of grace. So church can be me and two mates at Tashas over a cup of coffee, if need be. It can also be Rhema. And everything in between. But I make a big distinction between Church and Religion. Religion is fraught with powerful individuals trying to prove they are right and everyone else is wrong. I don’t subscribe to that, not one bit. I’d like to believe that my friends have never experienced me as the kind of Christian who forces his beliefs on others, but at the same time as someone that is not afraid to call himself Christian.

I simply meant to say, by retweeting Yancey’s quote, that the church still has relevance in my faith journey because I experience some of God’s unconditional love through the community of believers I worship with. I haven’t experienced that unconditional love outside of that environment. Maybe I have been blind or naive, and I apologise if I come across short-sighted, but I have not. I have no doubt Rich and I will agree to disagree on this one, and I’m ok with that, what I am not ok with is him thinking that I am implying there is nothing good outside of the church. Rich, dude, that is just not true, and that is just not me.

Let the flaming commence… ;)

Update:

John van de Laar (@sacredise), who originally tweeted the Yancey quote I mentioned above, posted his response to the debate / conversation here – you may find it interesting.

Smacking of the Metro Police department’s slamming of the now infamous @pigspotter profile, this press release is a sad indictment on the understanding of, and perception around, social media platforms in our country’s leadership. It is also a sad indictment on the grammar and spelling of the ANCYL’s spokespeople, but that is for another discussion.

Social media applications like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and MXit are being used by the youth of South Africa to share their stories and opinions, not to mention build relationships and connections that transcend racial and political boundaries. It is not the “profit driven media” (the words of the ANCYL president, not me), but rather the voice of the people; young and old, black and white, right- and left-wing alike.

The Youth League attempting to “call for the closer [sic] of twitter” is not just short-sighted, it is downright sad. There exists so much opportunity for the ANCYL to address its faithful, and not-so-faithful, in a space that is intimate and personal, and in doing so perhaps neutralising some of the negativity that many young white, coloured, Indian AND black people feel about their policies and antics.

I have, perhaps stupidly, sent Floyd a text message offering to debunk the myths and misconceptions around Twitter over a cup of coffee. Honestly, I would like to see the ANCYL and the ANC using social media effectively to hear and address the positive and negative sentiments of the people of this country.

Whether he takes me up on that offer, well, we’ll have to see!

Before you watch The Social Network, you must understand that it is not a documentary – it’s a Hollywood movie. Hollywood knows full well that the promise of the ‘true’ story behind the creation of Facebook has enough gravitas to put bums in cinema seats. Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin is quoted as saying, “I don’t want my fidelity to be to the truth; I want it to be to storytelling…”, and Dustin Moskovitz (played by Joseph Mazzello) described it as a “dramatisation of history”.

The story as told by the movie is simple – a brilliant and slightly awkward Harvard student creates a website that reinvents social networking on the Web, but the remarkable success of his creation impacts the relationships dearest to him, and not always for the better.

The movie is remarkable as a blockbuster in the sense that it relies heavily on character development with little to no sex, violence, effects or profanity as a drawcard. It’s not terribly funny, although the cleverly constructed script does squeeze in a few laughs here and there. And that’s where the quality is – a compelling story, weaved artfully with a fantastic script and some pretty solid performances from the young cast to boot.

Jesse Eisenberg is impressive as Mark Zuckerburg without being brilliant – it’s a role that shows potential for greater things than the awkward teenager disposition we saw in Adventureland and Zombieland (no relation). Other notables include Rooney Mara and Andrew Garfield (who is rumoured to be in line to play Peter Parker in an upcoming Spider-man reboot. Yes, another one…).

I was intrigued upon hearing that Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor would be behind the soundtrack but disappointed when the credits rolled and I couldn’t remember hearing it at all. Perhaps this is a good thing? Maybe it blended in so well that I was oblivious to it’s awesomeness.

This is a difficult movie to rate because I’m well aware the story of Facebook is probably more intriguing to me than the average viewer, but regardless of who you are there is no denying it is a well-written, skillfully constructed film atypical to it’s generation. I’m looking forward to your opinions though!

Rating: 6.5/10

interesting read, the decision wasn’t purely made because of our SM channels. And it wasn’t leaked to News24. thanks

Yesterday Twitter and Facebook were pumping with debate around a News24 story which reported that Woolworths “(had) taken a business decision to no longer stock any religious magazines, with immediate effect”.  Christian shoppers were up in arms, threatening a boycott until the decision was reversed, and the furore soon descended into a rather scathing (as is often the case with religion) argument on Woolies’ various social media platforms (see their Facebook fan page as an example).

Woolworths, who have historically been lauded for their conduct and responses on social media platforms (including by myself), were distinctly absent from the conversation, and to be frank I don’t blame them.  It got ugly, fast.

At 16h00, Woolworths announced the following on Facebook:

We have been overwhelmed by the response. Thanks to everyone who has supported us – we really appreciate it. It was not our intention to offend any religious group. Woolies has a deep regard for all faiths and will continue to respect all our customers’ beliefs. We’ve always prided ourselves on listening to our customers and we really do want our social media pages to be a 2-way conversation. As a retailer, we continually review all our products including magazines and stock products that our customers want and buy. You posted – we listened and have now decided to put all magazines back on our shelves. We will continue to take a retailer’s view on our catalogue going forward to ensure we stock the magazines that most of our customers want.

I don’t agree with this move.  That said, I’m not sure Woolworths had too many options left after the explosion of negative PR around the issue online.  There were clearly a series of mistakes made that hopefully you and I and other brands like Woolworths can learn from:

1. Why was the decision made in the first place, and how was it communicated?

To be leaked to News24 (who must have fallen over themselves in excitement at finding out about the rather controversial move), someone internally had to have communicated this as a decision to”remove religious titles from shelves”, or something similar.  I’m a Christian, I love God, and yet I still see the sense in a retailer removing titles from stores if those titles aren’t making enough money, or turning fast enough.  That’s just good business sense.  But somehow this was communicated internally in such a way as it sounded religiously motivated, not commercially motivated.  This was a disaster long before News24 broke the story, simply because of how it was communicated.

2. A lack of engagement

Woolies, historically very vocal in their social media channels, were suddenly conspicuously quiet – like a kid caught with their hand in the cookie jar. That silence irked consumers who have traditionally been spoiled with the openness and transparency Woolies usually leverages when the going is good, and let’s be frank, for Woolies the going is often good. Everyone loves Woolies. That’s another point – this wasn’t so much a backlash against Woolies as that age-old religious debate rearing it’s head. Another example – all those boycott-happy people who loathed BP so much for the gulf oil spill, I guarantee you, are back at BP stations filling up already. Two weeks from now nobody will remember these shenanigans and if they do, they won’t care.

3. Woolies’ skewed perception of the role of their social media audience

Woolworths have done an amazing job of building up a strong brand presence and community on Facebook and Twitter. Having achieved this their next strategic focus must be on how to include these smitten fans in such a way as to entrench a perception of transparency among them. No brand can afford to be completely transparent. They can be authentic, don’t get the two confused, but transparency is risky. So if Woolworths were thinking of removing certain titles from their shelves, and they sniffed even a whisker of controversy at that decision (which I have to believe they did), my suggestion would have been the following…

Communicate via social media, and in store, the instatement of a ‘customer referendum’ – a bit of a political play that echoes the likes of Nandos and Kulula. Announce that the business needs to make a decision about keeping certain titles on the shelf, and removing others. Ask customers in store to vote for their 3 favourite titles (and stand a chance to win subscriptions to all 3), and ask social media fans to vote on polls on the Facebook fan page to show which titles they love best. Ascertain via this process which titles people really have an affinity for and then gently, quietly, remove those that people don’t over a period of time.

The brand could then use the same ‘referendum’ mechanism to ask fans to vote for products they’d like to see, or products the brand used to stock which have been removed from shelves in the past, etc.

The major issue I see here is that Woolies have a skewed perception of the role and influence of their social media audience. The audience is a minority. A small, loud bunch of fans who should not drive business decisions. Changing a business decision because 34,000 fans are arguing about it is like refusing to drive to work because you have a blister on your foot. Sure it’ll sting, but at least you’ll be earning money.

The social media audience should have been included in the decision making process, thereby enforcing their advocacy and fanaticism for the brand. You could still remove religious titles rather surreptitiously, but I guarantee much less noise would have been made because all customers and fans would have felt like they were part of the process. Remember – the customer is king, but they sure as hell are not always right.

You might argue that it’s over and Woolies have won over their audience again by this retraction, but I argue that they’ve set a very dangerous precedent they will have to honour in future by being swayed by a blister on their foot. It’s going to be interesting to see how that pans out for them.

Since then Shyamalan has attempted time and again to recreate the mystique and intrigue of The Sixth Sense, and with the exception of maybe one or two features (in my opinion The Village was very entertaining), has never come close.

When I noticed a tweet by Riccardo Webb stating his rather candid assessment of Shyamalan’s most recent fantasy foray, The Last Airbender, I got to thinking again about Shyamalan’s career. I knew that the young director had not enjoyed the critical acclaim of his breakout film for at least a decade, but what I didn’t realise was just how mathematical the decline was. A quick glance at IMDb (again, I love this site), revealed a startling statistic:

Since The Sixth Sense, every movie that Shyamalan spouts forth declines steadily in rating, as decided by the users of IMDb (movies require thousands of votes before even qualifying for a rating, so it’s a pretty solid indication of a movie’s quality), with The Last Airbender managing only 4.4! Will Ferrell’s, um, seminal masterpiece Land of the Lost pips The Last Airbender with a rating of 5.3. I have seen Land of the Lost. I would rather lick the bum of a dead donkey than sit through that diabolical excuse of a movie again.

Needless to say, I will not be forking out cash to see The Last Airbender. Let’s pray this is as low as Shyamalan can possibly go, and that the undoubtedly talented director starts making some decent movies.

I’ll be updating live from the CSA Awards in Sandton.

Just arrived and the venue looks great, I’m seated with Vincent Hofmann, Shaun Custers and no doubt one or two other cricket geeks.

Ok so my hopes of being able to live blog the event were dashed by a lack of space on the

table. That and the fact that I would have been the only person in the rather large exhibition hall trying to balance a Mac on top of his salad.

The evening was incredibly slick – credit must go to CSA, their sponsors and of course the event co-ordinators for putting together a top-class show. Big winners on the night were Colin Ingram (on the domestic front) and the Hashim Amla, who took five awards of the six awards he was nominated for. Well done Hash! His scalps included Test Player of the year, CSA Cricketer of the year and more.

It was a great privilege to be a part of an event showcasing the sporting talents I admire and resp

ect so much, but also it was exciting and encouraging to be part of an event that was so willing to embrace the power of social media. The live screening of the event was integrated with a live Twitter feed under the hashtag #CSAawards that allowed fans back home on the couch to be a part of the action. Revolutionary stuff.

I look forward to seeing more brands, sporting events, etc. taking the same level of initiative to include ‘fans’.

Technical crap aside, it’s all fair and well having a faster, more expensive car but if you don’t have the after sales service to go with it you may as well not bother. I did not buy the Merc new, but it was recently due for it’s second service and so my first experience with Merc Sandton came to pass.

What a breath of fresh air. There’s not much between Audi and Merc, car-wise. I mean, there’s not much between an A4 2.0T and a C200. But there certainly is a big gap in service ethic between Audi Sandton and Merc Sandton (I can’t speak for other branches). From the moment I pulled up this morning, I was surprised – friendly staff, freshly-brewed coffee, orderly processing of vehicles, and a swiftly organised lift from the dealership to my breakfast appointment – all done and dusted in about 10 minutes.

When I picked up my vehicle the seats and steering wheel had been covered in plastic to prevent dirt or scuffing, and the car was spotless. It took another 10 minutes to pick up my keys, sign the paperwork and leave.

And then my heart sank.

I realised my CD changer was empty. All my CD’s were gone. A Leatherman I keep in the middle console was missing. So was the loose change, and, I kid you not, my gum and tissues were gone too.

I was livid. So much excitement, followed by such devastating (and all to familiar) disappointment. In fact I lost a wedding ring to an Audi dealership the same way.

In a state I phoned the service advisor Martin Fortuin to ask if he knew anything about it. He asked me to hold for a second, returned to the phone and broke the news…

My stuff, all of which had been carelessly left in the car by me (I’m bad that way), was all tucked away neatly and safely in a Ziploc bag back at the dealership, ready for my collection. Wow. If only all brands understood service and honesty like Mercedes-Benz do.

I might never own another brand of car. I mean, who needs more than the sound of that V8?