I did not agree with everything SW did or how it did it. In trying to be all things to all people it spread itself too thin and between the magazine content, the Whiskypedia and the news reporting there was a distinct sense of trying to run before it could walk. Perhaps a more precise and staggered build-up of these various aspects would have been more manageable. But I don’t know and I certainly don’t have all the answers as to what might or might not have lent it different fortunes.

However, this ‘all things to all people’ approach was, despite its problems, a noble endeavour and it is this sense of purpose and ambition that I think was SW’s most admirable quality. At its worst the content was occasionally a tad watery, or a little too cautious to challenge official convention. Though these criticisms are probably inevitable given the volume and variety of content it produced via a small army of contributors from all walks of life and industry. Mostly, SW was deservedly celebrated for its diversity and - most importantly of all - its accuracy.

I am every inch a writer. Not a journalist. if you speak to SW’s editor, Becky Paskin, you will hear a passionate and vigorous commitment to those very specifically journalistic qualities. When Serge and I write for Whiskyfun we record notes and observations with rather loose and personally defined rules. When I write Whiskysponge there’s pretty much zero rules at all. The same could be said for most whisky platforms / websites / blogs etc. SW’s commitment to sources, quotes, accuracy, research and reportage, all framed by a tight structure and clear organisation, sat at the core of its success and set it apart from all other digital whisky outlets.

When putting together my own contributions to the site, apart from the tastings, I was often pressed by Becky and Richard to improve the variety and quality of my sources. Not just to drop in quotes but to interview in better ways; to speak directly with sources and divine by questioning the most illuminating memory and opinion to enrich an article’s authority and veracity. In an era where the whisky internet is awash with poorly backed up opinion, hyperbole, conjecture and inaccuracies, this was something I suspect we will all increasingly notice by its absence. Indeed, the experience has been both educational and humbling for me and often reminded me why I prefer the lazy and easier option of being the ‘writer’ who opines and invents - rather than the journalist who works and reports. If anything, we should reflect on SW’s passing and all pause for thought about what makes good writing; what defines good journalism; and how the two can and should be fused to great effect.

There will be plenty discussion and debate still to come about what kind of system might effectively monetise an online magazine like SW. A Guardian style ‘opt in’ pay per month system? A straight up Patreon option supported by a careful degree of advertising? Utilising a system of payment for advanced access to reviews as some already do? Such models may well necessitate a smaller, more dynamic model than SW. However, they also offer a means by which the transactional nature of whisky writing might be further diminished. That contributors might be properly disconnected from the murky tangle of industry paid content and advertising. At least to the best extent that such a disconnect is truly possible. Although, in many ways SW’s demise is arguably a result to some extent of the industry’s disinterest in the site. No doubt almost all people employed in the whisky industry read SW, but how many companies actually supported it via advertising or sponsored content? If anything we might look upon SW’s closure as an indication of the industry doubling down on traditional marketing routes and eschewing magazines and traditional media. While on the other hand embracing the rise of the individual ‘influencer’. Discuss!

Irrespective of whatever model would work, I think the sad fate of SW should serve as a sharp reminder for us all whenever a platform of similar ambition and quality comes around again. For the sake of a few pounds a month, I suspect most of us would be happy to stick our hands in our pockets to support such an enterprise.

It is tempting to look upon SW’s closure as failure. But the truth is that for the time it was active it was a success. While financially its time ran out, the legacy will be one of information, celebration, thought provocation and admirable ambition. Let’s raise a glass of gratitude to the team behind it, Becky, Richard and Dave. Cheers guys, and thank you.

Thanks to Iain and John.