Raising capital is a challenge for just about every startup. Crafting a compelling vision, refining the pitch, making realistic financial projections, and proving the market opportunity are hard enough, but for most, that's not even the hardest part. Finding interested investors can be daunting, especially when SEC regulations limit most startup offerings to 'accredited investors'.

There are several ways to meet the SEC definition of an Accredited Investor, but the most common way to qualify is to be:

a natural person who has individual net worth, or joint net worth with the person’s spouse, that exceeds $1 million at the time of the purchase, excluding the value of the primary residence of such person

In other words, you need to be kinda rich. These rules exist supposedly to make sure that people don't put too much of their livelihood at risk in an investment with uncertain outcomes. If you're worth less than a million bucks, you probably aren't allowed to use ten grand to buy equity in a startup. Want to blow ten grand on a craps game? The SEC has nothing to say about it. Want to do your part to support a friend or try to fuel economic recovery? You'll have to pass the test first.

Last week, the US House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow crowdfunding as a source of capital exempted from SEC rules. If this bill becomes law (its chances look good,since it has support in the Senate and from the administration), startups could accept investments from crowds whose participants can kick in up to ten grand a piece, so long as the investment is less than ten percent of the investor's annual income. This means that even a poor graduate student making ten grand a year could be able to throw a thousand bucks at something invented by a colleague - and actually own some of the upside.

Opponents say crowdfunding creates potential pitfalls for entrepreneurs who may end up with too many investors to manage. They also claim that crowdfunding increases the chances that investors will participate in extremely risky, or even fraudulent offerings. Apparently, these naysayers believe that only millionaires can conduct due diligence. This not-so-soft bigotry can only be based on the myth that poor equals stupid.

Our economy and our country's morale is shackled by the belief that only the rich can get richer. I think that's a dangerous school of thought, but the harsh reality is that it is nearly impossible to build wealth on wages alone. In order to climb the economic ladder, you have to own something capable of appreciating in value faster than inflation. Cars and electronics will never do this. Real estate will only occasionally do this. The things that can appreciate quickly are the things that can also go bust. You aren't allowed to create wealth if you aren't allowed to take risks.

Crowdfunding will be good for entrepreneurs because it will expand the investor class. Now, if you've got a great pitch for an awesome product in a big market, you'll be able to search for investors in a haystack with a few more needles. It will also be good for the country, because ownership is good. Remember all that talk about how home ownership was good for the country? Turns out it wasn't so good when it wasn't real ownership. Equity in a startup is real ownership, not the myth of ownership sold by a lender. It's risky, but it's real.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Posterous has supported posting via email from the beginning. It's easy. It works. It's one of the things that attracted me to the service, but I just don't use it. When I get the urge to post, I just don't think about using email. I think about using an app.

When I see a loose flat-head screw, I don't look for a penny. I look for a screwdriver. A penny would do the job just as well, but our brains tend to associate each tool or available resource with a single purpose. Coins are for buying stuff, screwdrivers are for turning screws. Email is for direct communication. Apps are for mass/social communication. At least that's how my brain sees it today.

We might be more productive if we could train our brains to see all of our available resources as multi-purpose. We'd spend less time looking for the right tool and more time building, fixing, and posting. For now, I'm happy there's an app that does exactly what I want it to do and I hope more of my favorite services roll out dead simple Android apps that do only one thing.

I'm reminded of Joseph Baird's Ignite preso on Bricolage. Check out

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

So the internet is all abuzz with accusations and speculation following Michael Arrington's account of a clandestine meeting of prominent angel investors in San Francisco. According to Arrington, 'just about every major angel investor in Silicon Valley' was in the room, and they were there to talk about 'collusion and price fixing'. In other words, they were all there to figure out how they could work together to keep competition out and keep valuations low. Arrington and others are rightfully disturbed by the legal implications of such a discussion, but there are equally disturbing economic and strategic implications.

To me, the most striking thing about this whole story is what it says about the philosophy of the investors leading the discussion (to be fair, not everyone present was on board with the idea). Are tech startups in Silicon Valley really so commodotized that all of these investors view them through the same macro lens? If it could even be possible to affect valuations by collective agreement, then there is something terribly wrong. I really don't think this is a case of price fixing by an Oligopoly. More likely, these guys are  tired of getting skipped in the funding continuum because so many companies are going straight from incubator/accelerator to VC funding. If startups can go straight from a $10K seed round to a multi-million dollar series A round, then there isn't much room for angels, unless they are pooling their resources and syndicating every deal. If they can keep overall valuations artificially low, then the multi-million dollar rounds will be too costly for entrepreneurs, forcing them back into play for the 'super-angels'. I suppose there's some chance that this could have impact, but how beneficial would it really be if there's no competition on valuation amongst the angels? What kind of advantage do any of them have if they're all in every deal together?

We've all heard anecdotes about fierce competition amongst VC's for the hottest startups like FourSquare, but my sense is that these are few and far between, and they only seem to occur in deals where the main motivator is eyeballs. If you've got gazillions of eyeballs, anyone can figure out some way to make money on it. But what about the rest? What about the thousands of startups who have some other revenue model? If the revenue streams are mature, valuation is pretty easy, but these deals are also few an far between because companies with mature revenue streams don't need angel money. Should every pre-revenue deal be valued at a cool million bucks? Is $500K or $750K a better number? Obviously, pre-revenue valuations are subjective, but should they all be subject to some arbitrary 'industry standard'? As an investor, you've got to give a premium valuation to deals on which you can have a disproportionate impact. One investor's trash has to be another investor's treasure. There are very few deals that are total trash and there are even fewer that are guaranteed treasure.

This kind of commodotization of startup valuation is bad for entrepreneurs, but it's worse for investors. Why? Because an investor who won't compete for a deal proves that he isn't really offering anything more than a check. If these investors are going to be so passive in their diligence, and so flippant about the valuation of businesses, they'll probably end up sending even more deals to the accelerators that provide the services and mentorship startups need. To me, if there's no competition for the deal, I probably shouldn't be doing it. In my book, there are only 2 kinds of deals worth doing:

1) A deal in which the founders are willing to give me a lower valuation because they see the strategic value that I and/or SproutBox bring to the deal, or

2) A deal in which I'm willing to pay a higher valuation because I believe I can grow value or create liquidity faster than other investors.

That's it. If I'm valuing the deal the same as everyone else, it's probably a bad deal. If an entire strata of investors collude to determine the value of all their deals, then they'll all be bad deals.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

By now, you've probably heard about The Combine. If you haven't, stop reading and click this link: http://www.thecombine.org/

Ok, now that you know about The Combine, let me tell you a little more about the very first event on the agenda - Open Pitch Session. We're kicking things off with an open pitch session because The Combine is truly a display of talent and creativity - not just from the incredible speaker lineup, but from the attendees, too. We know there is a whole slew of great ideas out there, just waiting to be heard by the person who can turn it into reality. Maybe that person is an investor. Maybe it's a co-founder you're looking for. Maybe you don't know what you're looking for. As long as you believe you've got a good idea, bring it.

What should I pitch?

Probably a business idea, but maybe something else. Based on what I know about the attendees so far, it looks like there will be lots of help for people with ideas for web-based businesses. I also know that most of these people can help with just about anything creative. So, if you've got an idea for a non-profit that will change the world, or if you think you've figured out how to build an affordable, wearable, human jet-pack, I think you should come pitch that, too.

Will there be investors there?

Definitely. We're expecting Angels & VC's. SproutBox, HALO Capital Group, and Gravity Ventures will be front-and-center looking for people and ideas to invest in.

Who else will be there?

There will be designers, programmers, lawyers and biz dev folks. There will be other entrepreneurs, educators, and probably even a few scientists. If there's a human resource you need to take your idea to the next level, and you can't find it at this event, then you [insert you're favorite direct insult here].

When and Where is it taking place?

2pm on Thursday Sept 9 at SproutBox. http://sproutbox.com/what/box

What should I bring?

Whatever you need to make your point - as long as it's not toxic or illegal. Bring a laptop or powerpoint if you want. We'll have computer set up with sound and internet and a giant projection screen. Mostly, just bring the ideas. Bring some peanut butter or chocolate, and try to bump into someone else. Maybe something magical will happen.

OK, I'm ready to pitch, who should I contact?

If there's time, we'll let anyone grab the mic on the spot, but you should send an email to pitch }at{ thecombine }dot{ org to guarantee yourself a spot.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Yesterday, a letter was sent to AZ Governor Jan Brewer stating the City Of Bloomington's opposition to Senate Bill 1070 and stating the city's intent to boycott all businesses headquartered in AZ (pdf attached). It was signed by the Mayor, the City Clerk, and every member of the Bloomington City Council. Except me.

It has quickly turned into a media spectacle. The Bloomington Herald-Times first covered the story (pdf attached), igniting a record-breaking string of comments on their website. This morning, Indianapolis TV station WISH TV came to Bloomington to cover the story. I'm now getting calls and emails from all over the place (both geographically and ideologically). Before I do another interview or respond to another email about it, I thought I'd write a quick post summarizing my thoughts on the whole thing.

As for the bill itself, I'm opposed to it. But who cares? Arizona has a serious issue on their hands, and they need to sort it out. I don't have a vote in the AZ legislature, and I don't fault those who do for trying to crack down on illegal immigration. I don't think the bill was motivated by racism. I do, however, think it will lead to greater racial tension and place additional and unnecessary stress on hispanic relations with law enforcement. Many have pointed out that there is nothing in the Arizona bill that is not already in Federal law. While this is mostly true, the bill attempts to codify very specific police actions and makes the Mexican border look downright secure when compared with the line between state and Federal jurisdiction. Illegal immigration may pose a problem for the state of Arizona, but that doesn't give them authority over it. Immigration is controlled by federal law and needs to be enforced by  federal agents, not local cops.

It's a local problem, why shouldn't they solve it locally? Imagine if federal income tax evasion were rampant in the state of Indiana and we decided it was a local problem that we needed to tackle. The analogous response would be to require every local cop to check the IRS records of every person they pulled over for running a stoplight to be sure that they were current on their taxes. Worse, it would put the burden on every person travelling through the state to carry a copy of their tax returns with them in the car in order to avoid being detained and turned over to the feds. Ridiculous? Yes. But this is exactly what the arizona law will do. I dare anyone to convince me that being here without papers is any worse than failing to pay your taxes. Both are non-violent federal crimes.

So, if I'm opposed to the bill, why didn't I sign the letter? Well, for starters, did I mention that I don't live in Arizona? The constant urge to weigh in on matters in other states and matters of federal policy is a poison in local politics. We've got plenty to worry about in Bloomington without trying to solve every other problem in the world. To be fair, we don't try to solve every problem - just the ones that are getting lots of headlines. Worse, the proposed boycott is hypocritical on two levels. First, we are protesting Arizona's ignorance of jurisdictional boundaries by ignoring our own. Sticking our nose in the jurisdiction of other states and levels of government isn't just futile, it's a dangerous trend that will someday threaten our ability to keep our own house in order. How can we ask the feds to stay out of our business when we refuse to stay out of theirs? Second, we are protesting discrimination with...discrimination! I'm certain that many of the business owners in Arizona don't support this bill. Why should we pass judgement on them and threaten their livelihood just because they are located in a state whose legislature we disagree with?

Finally, it's a bluff. Hoosier Disposal, the company that handles 100% of Bloomington's waste stream, is now owned by Republic Services based in Phoenix. If the city finds another way to deal with all of our trash to prove this point, I'll eat my words. But we won't. That is all.

City_of_Btown.pdf Download this file

Bloomington-officials-plan-Arizona-boycott.pdf Download this file

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Everyone in the office has their laptops sitting on these sleek little stands, so I finally decided to get one for myself. Inspiration and materials courtesy of JB's Salvage.

See the full gallery on Posterous

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

It's officially out of hand. The next time I hear someone ask, "What's hot right now?" and someone says,  "location awareness", I'm literally going to puke. Then I'm going to log into FourSquare, create a new venue called "Brad's Puke", and check in there. Then, I'll go back tomorrow and check in again so I can become the mayor of my own vomit.

You see, FourSquare is cool because it is a game. Well, it's cool to users because it's a game. And because it makes it harder for your friends to ditch you when you're on a bar crawl. It's cool to venue owners and advertisers for a whole different reason - super-laser-targeted ads and offers. Perhaps the coolest thing about it is that all of the users are unwittingly building a sort of living Yellow Pages. I'm certain that my obsession with FourSquare is wearing off, but I'm also convinced that it will remain, at the very least, a useful social tool to help me figure out where people are, or where they were last night. But here's my point - even FourSquare doesn't need to be location aware. There are so many 'nearby' venues presented that I end up using the search function nearly every time I check in anyway. Location awareness is simply a little tool that speeds up the act of checking in. sometimes.

So, my reading of the news of BlockChalk's $1million in funding came with partial regurgitation of my big salad from http://foursquare.com/venue/235825 (aka, Yogi's Grill & Bar). BlockChalk makes an iPhone app that lets you leave notes around your neighborhood. Really? There's an app for that? I can leave messages, to-do's, tips, etc. on FourSquare and I can actually drop virtual items on Gowalla, so what's unique about BlockChalk? The supposed secret sauce is that you can leave notes in any virtually fenced-in area. It doesn't have to be a venue. Woo hoo! There's no competition or rewards, but now you can leave notes anywhere - a block, an alley, a dumpster, a rock, anything.

Location awareness is not a sector, a vertical, a space, or a market. It's not even a product. It's a teeny tiny enabling feature that is probably optional on most useful apps. I'm all for investing in useful apps that use location awareness to improve their user experience, but location awareness by itself is nothing. Location plus notes is still nothing. It's not a game. It's not terribly useful for advertising. The only value I can see here is that it may create a sort of user-generated history book about a location. More likely, it will read like the walls of a bathroom stall. Perhaps I can create a virtual fence around my puke, and leave a note for those who pass by years later saying, "Ha! You just stepped where Brad Wisler puked in 2010."

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

In his recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Tom Perkins claims that "Too often, there is confusion between investment banking and venture capital." It's hard to argue with that statement, but it's investors like Tom Perkins that deserve the bulk of the blame for this confusion. Perkins says the difference between VC and Investment Banking (IB) is that "venture capitalists work with entrepreneurs to start new companies from the ground up". I'm not sure how Perkins defines "the ground", but I'm pretty sure I'd need to take an elevator to get up there.

Perkins' firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers has certainly done its fair share of early investing. They became famous for being early investors in homerun deals like Amazon and Google, but even in those cases, they weren't in 'from the ground'. When they invested in Google, for example, Google already had 11 employees. That may seem really early considering the number of employees Google has today, but it's really late compared to Andy Bechtolsheim's investment a year earlier. He wrote a $100,000 check before there were any employees and before the entity was even filed!. That's ground level investing.

More importantly, KPCB (and most of the other Sand Hill Road crowd) get most of their exposure from the massive returns they generate when one of their portfolio companies IPO's. The returns are phenomenal (KCPB's Amazon investment produced about a 55,000% return), so I can't blame them for focusing intently on these opportunities. But, please don't whine about the confusion with IB when taking companies public is your MO. For more evidence of this attitude, look no further than Sand Hill Road's disappointment in the measly 5x return that Aaron Patzer produced for his mint.com investors.

The confusion is furthered by VC's who openly offer 'Founder Liquidity Stage Investments". I've received calls this year from some of the most recognizable VC's on both coasts telling me about these types of offerings, but apparently it's been happening for a while. This is a really awesome thing for founders, because it allows them to realize a payday without dealing with the nightmare of taking a company public. But these VC 'investments' are nothing more than a clever way to buy options in an imminent IPO. Gee, I wonder why that would cause confusion.

Every investor loves the 'no-brainers' that produce certain returns, and every investor loves revenue and clear exit opportunities. Even traditional banks will finance many of these types of opportunities.  If some of us don't step up and make pre-revenue investments based solely on our faith in the idea and the people involved, the bankers won't have any 'no-brainers' to consider. Unfortunately, this banker-mentality investing has infected more than just the big VC's. In Part 2, I'll talk about how some prominent angel investors are giddy about later-stage, fixed-return, low-risk, loans. Some of these guys should call themselves 'Angel Loan Originators'.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

This post originally appeared as a guest post on Larry Chiang's blog at BusinessWeek.

It's an intense experience to create a business plan, build your initial product, and find a way to fund it. Managing a company once you gain traction presents an entirely different set of challenges. Here are a some tips to remember as you make the transition from founder of a startup to CEO of a growing company.

Don't stop pitching.
Travel. Meet people. Share your vision with anyone who will listen. Every successful entrepreneur will tell you stories of chance encounters that became turning points for their businesses. Just because you found your first round of funding doesn't mean you can stop pitching. You probably haven't met the partner, customer, adviser or employee that will be the catalyst for your success, and you'll never meet that person from behind your desk. Telling your story also helps you refine your plans. It may be the 247th time you give your pitch that you finally hear how stupid some part of it sounds, or how profound another part is. Traveling also gives you a chance to escape the urgent and think about things that are important. This blog post would not exist if it weren't for a long flight home from San Francisco.

Get a great secretary.
I don't mean a receptionist. I mean a corporate secretary - someone with a knack for documentation and organization, someone who takes great notes, a great writer. This might be a young assistant or it might be a seasoned executive. It doesn't matter who it is, but every organization needs at least one. Technology makes information easy to retrieve, but that doesn't necessarily mean easy to find. Your policies, procedures, product info, training, and marketing materials must be easily understood by people you never meet. Yes, you can probably explain these things better in person, but if your company is growing, you won't have time.

Don't just treat your employees like owners, make them owners.
Not phantom stock, not bonuses, not profit sharing. Give them equity in the company. Let them know exactly what percentage (or fraction of a percentage) of the company they own. Let them know when they get diluted. This is the only way they will see the big picture. Remember, employees care about process more than value, but owners care about creating value first.

Get the generic version of everything except people.
Expensive furniture and equipment won't make your people more productive if they are unskilled. Buying them fancy dinners and first class flights won't motivate them if they're bored and unchallenged. Truly productive and creative people enjoy doing more with less. Give them a comfortable chair and a flat surface with a computer that doesn't crash, and watch the magic happen. If it doesn't happen, replace them quickly. Never hire the slightly-less-impressive-but-quite-a-bit-cheaper candidate. If you can't afford the candidate you want, wait. Hiring always seems urgent, but remember: when you need to hire someone real bad, you'll probably make a real bad hire.

Let your personality show in your products and your workspace.
There are lots of ways to do this, but it starts with your product names and logos. Don't let anyone talk you out of a name that is meaningful to you, as long as it's telling your story. Stay away from acronyms and inside jokes, but don't worry too much about 'what the industry will accept'. Focus on being meaningful and memorable.  It's not a bad thing if people are asking where the name came from, as long as they are spelling the domain correctly. Your workspace should do the same. If impressionist art doesn't inspire you, don't hang it on your walls. If you like action figures, keep a few on your desk (not in your desk, on display). There is nothing more exhausting and conflicting than hiding your true identity. Remember: Peter Parker and Clark Kent are broke, and Bruce Wayne is fictional. Besides, he inherited his money.

Share your vision for tomorrow, but sell what you have today.
This is similar to 'under-promise and over-deliver', but it goes further. You'll need to convince people that your product - even in its incomplete state - is better than their current solution. Don't integrate with their legacy system, replace it. Persuasion will usually cost less than integration, and it will always be faster. Selling features you don't have gives your sales people control of your entire organization. That's usually bad because sales is about instant gratification rather than long term value. You need to have a plan for attacking the market and stick to it. Overselling takes you off of this plan.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I was sooooo excited when I first discovered Posterous. I thought the simple email posting was going to be the thing that would actually allow me to fit regular blog posts into my busy schedule. This is my first post in 4 months. So much for 'regular'.

The truth is that it's not the posting that takes any amount of time. I'm sitting in front of a computer most of the time, anyway. Besides, almost every blogging system has some sort of mobile interface now. What really takes time is organizing my thoughts into a coherent post. I've got a list on my G1 of blog post ideas that is a mile long (somewhat ironically, this one isn't on the list).

The real reason that I never get posts completed when I'm away from my desk is that email clients are crappy text editors. Sure, I can save a draft if I don't complete a post. But how often are you reminded of the drafts you need to complete? I usually ignore anything in my drafts folder because it's chock full of half-written messages that were auto-saved when I went through a tunnel or stepped into an elevator.

A text editor with a reminder system or a better drafts interface might help, but probably not much. I could make time in my day to write a blog post if I really wanted to. The underlying problem is that blogging has never become a part of my communication system or my branding strategy. And Posterous is partially responsible for that. I don't even attempt to drive traffic to my blog because it's nothing to see. It looks just like every other Posterous site. I think I could fill it with interesting thoughts, but there's nothing visual to draw you in. I can't even put my logo on the page!!!

Seriously, Posterous, even Twitter has some level of visual customization. Aren't you a yCombinator company? You should be at least a little bit agile in this regard. If you made a strategic decision for complete uniformity to be your differentiating factor, fine. It seems a bit contradictory, but we'll just agree to disagree. If you just haven't gotten around to it yet, then shame on you. SproutBox's latest project, online reservation engine ScheduleThing, includes visual customization for provider pages, including logos and custom color schemes. It took our dev team about a day to develop and implement the groundbreaking technology shown below.

Oh, wait. I'm posting from the web, so I can't even add a photo to this post. I guess I'll make another post via email where I'll actually show the screenshot. Please don't get me wrong. I love Posterous as a company. There is definitely a market that needs this product. I'm just not sure I'm part of it. I've got to go now, WordPress and Tumblr are calling.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Startups need things. Lots of things. You can't bake a company with a recipe alone. You need utensils, ingredients, an oven, a mixing bowl, and some counter space. A complicated recipe might even require an assistant chef. Some of these things are easy to find. Some of them are more elusive and expensive.

Luckily, startups have something they can barter with to acquire these things: equity in a potentially appreciating asset. In any good transaction, the startup will trade some of that equity for something that will accelerate its appreciation. The startup gets what it needs, the other party gets an instant increase in theoretical value and a shot at a real-life profit. For years, entrepreneurs and investors have been trading these things back and forth. The trade has traditionally taken the same form: Investor gives money to startup, startup gives equity to investor. This works out OK, because money is one of those things startups need and, with enough of it, they can buy all the other stuff.

But, how much sense does it really make for cooks to leave the kitchen to go shopping? Nothing is baking while the cook is at the store. Nothing is getting mixed. The oven isn't even pre-heating. That equity isn't appreciating. There are probably two types of entrepreneurs: those who will spend more and make quicker decisions so they can get back in the kitchen and those who will take their time to find the best deals. Since time is money, both are a waste.

But there is a bigger problem for real startups than for our analogous cooks. These cooks might make a trip to the store to buy ingredients before each baking project, but they wouldn't buy a new rolling pin or a new bread pan every time, and they certainly wouldn't buy new cabinets and appliances for each new loaf of bread. But this is exactly what happens in the startup world! Investors' money goes to buy new computers, lease new office space and buy new furniture for every new startup they fund. They spend money recruiting and re-locating new staff and paying lawyers to draw up new legal entities and operating agreements.

Luckily, a new breed of merchants have shown up, ready to barter with a new currency. Rather than simply trading money for equity, we deal directly in the tools and ingredients, eliminating the trip to the store so the cooks start mixing faster. Better yet, some us have learned to trade in the use of our counter tops and ovens (and even our assistant chefs), rather than trying to trade those items themselves. By reducing overhead, re-using staff and space, and recycling designs and code, we get businesses baking faster, and create a whole lot less waste.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I stumbled onto a great flickr album of street art from around the world. This album is mostly pics of pieces by the same crew, but it's pretty impressive. If you look through the album in chronological order, you'll notice a couple of commissioned pieces thrown in. It paints an interesting picture of the life of modern street artists, periodically working for money so they can follow their passion around the world. Sorry for that terrible pun. Enjoy.
 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/heavyartillery

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

OK, so I'm going to start blogging. I've had grand plans for my personal website for years, but it looks like this blog is going to have to do for now. The nice thing about this format is that I can keep this blog active, even if I do someday get around to creating a more complete website. I'll be posting about startups, art (mostly street art), politics (mostly local, some national), technology, and anything else that I think would be interesting to the very few people who are likely to visit here. I'm sure I'll mention stuff about SproutBox and the businesses we help launch, but this is not a marketing or self-promotion tool. I'll genuinely try to make the content relevant and interesting. Promise. Really.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »