Online press releases and SEO strategy

Online, or electronic, press releases can be a highly effective way of building your online presence. In addition to generating buzz about your business, you can use e-releases to get high-quality incoming links for your site. We helped write and distribute another one last week for a client involved in the cloud computing space and it's already been picked up by some respectable sources, including Yahoo News. Read our release here.

BusinessWeek on the growing demand for social media directors

Last week's BusinessWeek covers corporate America's "rush" to hire social media directors:

Across the country, companies like Petco are going through a two-step process. First, they scramble to hire social media officers. Second, they figure out what it is, exactly, that social media officers do. Blending departments—promotion and marketing, customer service and support—and requiring the ability to be shameless boosters while maintaining a light, self-aware tone, the job category is experiencing a boomlet as companies try to keep up with the new media world. The chief social media officer may be supplanting the chief branding officer as the zaniest human resource innovation in memory.

These articles always make me cringe a bit, but you can't blame big companies for wanting to be active in this space. Towards the end of the piece the topic of metrics comes up:

Metrics used to evaluate success in corporate social media might include: number of Tweets; number of re-Tweets (a Twitter message that's resent by a follower); instances of "customer recovery," in which an irate civilian is successfully mollified; an increase in the number of Facebook fans or Twitter followers; and the number of photos of your product that have been posted online.

What about website visits from Facebook and Twitter activity? Or leads or sales? Those seem much more relevant than number of Tweets.

NY Times on Trial and Error with AdWords and SEO

You worked hard to launch a new PPC campaign, picking the right keywords and creating brilliant copy--only to see no results. We've all encountered online marketing challenges such as this and it can be incredibly frustrating.

This is the topic explored by Adriana Gardella in her recent post "Trial and Error with AdWords and S.E.O" for the NYTimes.com's small business-focused blog, You're The Boss. Gardella chronicles the experience of Catherine Hill, owner of an online retailer of women's plus size fashion.

Hill ran an AdWords campaign and ended up incurring a monthly loss of over $10,000 because while her site was getting a lot of traffic from AdWords, the visits were not resulting in sales. Sound familiar? Lack of conversion is a sign that you need to play around with different keywords, copy and bids. And even then you still may ultimately conclude, as Hill did, that AdWords is simply not a good fit for your business.

The takeaway here is that, in most cases, not all online marketing techniques will work for a business. And the only way to find out which approaches are worthwhile is through trial and error. But too many people feel "locked" into a marketing strategy and are reluctant to make changes once they've implemented it.

Hill learned through trial and error that the key to her website's success lay in quality content and social media outreach. Maintaining a Facebook page allowed her to share style tips for plus-size women, updates about upcoming sales and more with her customer base. Setting up a Facebook page was free and quickly proved to be much more effective in attracting qualified buyers than the email list rental that Hill was previously paying big bucks for.

So, don't be afraid to admit that an AdWords campaign or other marketing activity you tried didn't work; take what you learned and build upon it. That's what Hill did and ended up growing sales by over 50% from the previous year--while spending approximately $14,000 less on marketing.

Inc. Magazine on Using Google to Improve Your SEO

Inc.'s recent article How to Use Google to Improve Your SEO brings up a good point: chances are you're already using Google to help you find what you're looking for online--but are you using it to help others find your business?

The article opens with a summary of three fundamental SEO practices:

1) Getting as many high-quality sites to link back to you.

2) Making sure that the other sites linking to you contain relevant keywords that you would like to rank on. "If you want to reach a high search engine ranking for 'Chicago tutors,' for example, your best links would come from other sites that also rank well for that search term," suggests Inc.

3) Posting keyword-rich content and integrating those keywords into your site's title tags and meta descriptions.

If you're new to the world of SEO, you're probably wondering how to go about choosing keywords that are relevant to your business. That's where Google AdWords Keyword Tool comes in. It will help you identify the terms that people looking for your type of business are searching on. The tool generates lists of keywords that allow you to compare search volume and level of competition for different terms. The article's author, J.J. McCorvey, recommends complementing your keyword research by using Google Trends, which allows you to see the search patterns for a given word over time.

So, you've gotten a respectable number of incoming links, identified the right keywords and integrated these words into your site's content and meta data--now what? How do you measure your newly optimized site's performance? McCorvey points us to the metrics tool Google Analytics. It provides a plethora of stats such as bounce rate, or percentage of visitors who leave your site after viewing only one page, average time spent on site and more.

The other performance analysis tool, Google Webmaster, has a Diagnostics feature that can help you identify weaknesses in your site's meta data, crawlability and more. Its Statistics arm, meanwhile, analyzes incoming traffic, including which search queries bring visitors to your site. This information enables you to go back and tweak your content so that it optimized on the best-performing keywords.

McCorvey goes on to say that the beauty of Google's SEO tools (besides the fact that they are free!) is the ability to use them in conjuction with one another. As an example, McCorvey points to Google Analytics, whose data you can use "in conjunction with Google's Website Optimizer, which enables split testing of modified pages. After you've made improvements to a page, you can set the Website Optimizer so that a certain amount of viewers see the old version of the page, and use Google Analytics to compare and analyze the results."

McCorvey closes with a reference to the SEO mantra "Content is King," the importance of which shouldn't be forgotten as you get better and better at using Google's optimization tools. If the Keyword Tool tells you that a given term gets a high number of searches and it "...isn't extensively covered on your website, maybe it's worthwhile to churn out a couple more pages on that topic."

Using Google Analytics filters to measure marketing results

We've recently found the "filter" feature in Google Analytics to be a great way to measure effectiveness of our SEO and other internet marketing efforts for clients over time. In this post I'll explain why and give an overview of how to use it.

The problem with unfiltered reports and totals

If you're like most small businesses using Google Analytics, you spend a lot of time looking under Traffic Sources looking at the Referring Sites report and the Keywords (non-paid) report. These reports tell you much of what you need to know about where your traffic is coming from -- and tracking their total numbers over time can give you a good sense of how well your marketing is working.

The problem is that your Referring Sites report will often be dominated by a small number of sites, and your Keywords report will often be dominated by a small number of keywords relating to your brand name. These sites and keywords are critical, but as you grow, your marketing and SEO efforts will focus more and more on traffic from new sites and new keywords.

Let's say you're an employment lawyer in DC named "Teresa Millbrook." Six months ago, both your Referring Sites report and your Keyword report were very top-heavy:

• Two sites - usalawyers.com and dclaw.com - were driving 95% of your referring site traffic
• A handful of "brand" keywords (i.e. keywords related to "teresa millbrook") were driving 95% of your organic search traffic

Since then, you've reached out to a bunch of relevant websites to boost your inbound links and optimized your website for non-brand keywords like "dc employment lawyer". Now you want to know what impact your efforts have had.

If you're like most people, you'll scan through your reports to see what new referring sites and keywords pop up, maybe comparing back to your list of target lists. If you're more advanced, you'll compare the total visits from referring sites and search engines 6 months ago to today (e.g. October vs. March).

The problem with these approaches is they miss the long tail, which is the most likely place you've had success. Sure, we all want to see a new referrer or keyword sending hundreds of visits, but the far more likely scenario from SEO efforts is that a large number of new sites and keywords are each sending you a tiny number of clicks. In aggregate, these new sources of traffic may be sending you hundreds or thousands of clicks, but because many of them are only sending you 1-3 clicks a month, they're easy to miss if you're just scanning your reports.

You may notice the trend if you compare total referrer or search visits over time, but you're doing an apples-to-oranges comparison. What if your traffic from usalawyers.com and dclaw.com dropped by 25% over the last 6 months? You might miss the increase from your new referrers. Or what if your traffic from brand keywords increased by 25% over the last 6 months? You might mistakenly attribute the jump in your total visits to your non-brand SEO.

How to use filters

The only way to get around the problems above -- and gain a true measure of your SEO and marketing effectiveness -- is to use filters. Filters allow you to do an apples-to-apples comparison of long tail sites / keywords before and after you implemented your marketing efforts.

If you're Teresa the lawyer, here's how you'd use filters in Google Analytics to measure your Referring Sites traffic growth:

1. Under Traffic Sources, click the Referring Sites report.
2. Select your "before" time period, let's say it's October 2009.
3. Click the Advanced Filter link on the bottom of the page.
4. Keep the filter on "Source", change the drop-down to "Excluding", and enter "usalawyers.com".
5. Click "Add new condition", choose "Source", "Excluding", and enter "dclaw.com".
6. Click "Apply Filter".
7. Write down the Total Visits number.
8. Select your "after" time period, let's say it's March 2010.
9. Repeat steps 3 through 7.
10. Compare the Total Visits between the two periods.

Then you'd use the same basic process for your Keyword report, filtering out keywords with "teresa", then keywords with "millbrook". If your brand name gets a lot of misspellings, include those too (e.g. "theresa", "millbrooke"); in some cases, you can avoid having to include all of the variations by just shortening a keyword to a "base" version that includes many misspellings (e.g. "mill"). (Just check to make sure doing this doesn't cause you to count traffic from non-brand keywords that share that same base.)

Final Thoughts

The next time you're in Google Analytics, try using the 10-step process above. Hopefully when you're done, you'll see a jump in the Total Visits from "before" to "after" and you'll gain new insights into what is causing the increase.

Keep in mind that the comparison this process enables isn't perfect; there may be seasonality and other factors at work. But it is much more scientific than the more commonly used approaches: eyeballing and comparing totals of raw traffic reports. By using filters, you'll gain a far more accurate view of what's working and what's not in your marketing efforts.

WSJ on measuring web traffic

Interesting recent article on the murky business of measuring web traffic from Carl Bialik of the Wall Street Journal. He elaborates on some points in a post on The Numbers Guy blog. Most interesting to me is his discussion of the gap between internal site numbers from web analytics tools (e.g. Google Analytics, Omniture) and competitive analysis tools (ComScore, Nielsen, Compete, Quantcast), with the latter's numbers much lower than the former's. My two thoughts:

1) While bothersome, this gap is much less of a problem if everything is "directionally consistent". If Compete shows that my site gets 60% as much traffic as Google Analytics does, I want this ratio to be true for all of my competitors. If Google Analytics shows my site's traffic going up 50% over the last year, I want Compete to as well. I think part of the frustration among website managers is that, not only are there big gaps between internal and external counting, there are also inconsistencies in these other areas.

2) If cookies create problems with double-counting users who visit sites on multiple computers, can't we focus more on visits and less on unique visitors?

Personalized search from Google and SEO research

Over the last 6 months I've had a number of occasions where I describe the Google search results I'm seeing to someone on the phone, or across the table, and they say "that's not what I'm seeing." I'd begun to suspect this was partly because Google was giving preference to websites/search results I'd previously clicked on. Today I finally decided to look into it ... and learned that 2 months ago Google made a major, official move to personalized search -- and past clicking behavior is a big factor.

Personalized search is not new, but previously it was only offered to sign-in users who had "Web History" enabled. In early December, Google's blog announced that "Today we're helping people get better search results by extending Personalized Search to signed-out users worldwide, and in more than forty languages." The post's author explained personalized search as follows:

Since I always search for [recipes] and often click on results from epicurious.com, Google might rank epicurious.com higher on the results page the next time I look for recipes. Other times, when I'm looking for news about Cornell University's sports teams, I search for [big red]. Because I frequently click on www.cornellbigred.com, Google might show me this result first, instead of the Big Red soda company or others.

Three days later, Danny Sullivan wrote on Search Engine Land that Google had "made the biggest change that has ever happened in search engines, and the world largely yawned."

This trend makes a lot of sense for users, but can lead to a false sense of SEO success if you're a business. Let's say you're a DC area dentist and you search for "DC dentists." Google's default results -- which most people see -- list your website on the 10th page. But because you've clicked on your site a number of times in past searches, your personalized Google results show your site on the 1st page, in the #3 spot. You think you're in great shape -- and you give your SEO consultant a raise -- when in reality you're as invisible as you were a year ago.

So if you don't want to purchase software like WebPosition, how do you see what most other people are seeing on Google? You can opt out of personalized search and you can delete your search history (which Google keeps for 180 days) at any time. But you probably don't want to do that, because then you lose out on the benefits of personalized search for your personal browsing. What I'm going to do is use a different browser (one I never use otherwise) when I'm doing SEO research and try not to click on any links. I'll let you know if I come up with a better solution.

Fixed-schedule productivity

You know those half-days of work before you're about to go on vacation? You show up to work, have to leave by noon, and have a lot of things to get done before you go -- some of which you've been working on for weeks. It's always amazed me how, in that 3-hour span, you finish what might have taken 2 days if there weren't a pressing deadline, and often with higher quality results. You find a way to reach elusive people, get final answers to lingering questions, and cross off for good non-essential tasks.

Like most people, I generally consider myself to focused and disciplined when I work. But after I have one of these super-focused half-days, I realize how unproductive I am the rest of the time. Which is why Tim Ferriss's time management ideas (chapter 5) in the 4-Hour Workweek resonated with me and so many other people. Here's Ferriss's core argument in his words:

There are two synergistic approaches for increasing productivity that are inversions of each other:

1. Limit tasks to the important to shorten work time (80/20).
2. Shorten work time to limit tasks to the important (Parkinson's Law).

The best solution is to use both together: Identify the few critical tasks that contribute most to income and schedule them with very short and clear deadlines.

Ferriss recently tweeted about similar case for setting strict deadlines and focusing on what really matters: "fixed-schedule productivity" from Cal Newport. Newport, a post-doc at MIT, has a short version of his argument on his blog, but the longer, example-backed version from this guest blog post is better.

Here's Newport's one-sentence summary of the approach:

Fix your ideal schedule, then work backwards to make everything fit — ruthlessly culling obligations, turning people down, becoming hard to reach, and shedding marginally useful tasks along the way.

And here's his more detailed summary:

The steps to adopting fixed-schedule productivity are straightforward:

1. Choose a work schedule that you think provides the ideal balance of effort and relaxation.
2. Do whatever it takes to avoid violating this schedule.

This sounds simple. But of course it’s not. Satisfying rule 2 is non-trivial. If you took your current projects, obligations, and work habits, you’d probably fall well short of satisfying your ideal schedule.

Here’s a simple truth that you must confront when considering fixed-schedule productivity: sticking to your ideal schedule will require drastic actions. For example, you may have to:

• Dramatically cut back on the number of projects you are working on.
• Ruthlessly cull inefficient habits from your daily schedule.
• Risk mildly annoying or upsetting some people in exchange for large gains in time freedom.
• Stop procrastinating.

In the abstract, these are all hard goals to accomplish. But when you’re focused on a specific goal — “I refuse to work past 5:30 on weekdays!” — you’d be surprised by how much easier it becomes to deploy these strategies in your daily life.

Even though they're very similar (and I think 4-Hour Workweek was the inspiration for fixed-schedule productivity), I find Newport's case more palatable than Ferriss's -- because the steps to follow it are more concrete and his examples are of people who work a normal workday. That's not to say it's easy to stick to, but I'm trying ...

A plea for more Paradox of Choice research

Like Freakonomics co-author Stephen Dubner, I found Barry Schwartz's Paradox of Choice very persuasive -- even though one of my favorite free market commentators seems to equate Schwartz with the devil (here and here). In a recent blog post, Dubner cites new research that runs counter to Schwartz's argument that too much choice often leads to paralysis and unhappiness. It's interesting, but it's only from one sources and seems pretty limited.

What I can't figure out is why there's not more debate and research taking place on this issue, which seems so critical for economists, marketers, product managers, usability and design experts, and plenty of others in business and academia. How many choices to offer its users / customers / donors / etc. seems like a decision almost every organization faces in some area at some point; many face it constantly.

And it's not just makers of jam or chocolates. I've struggled with this issue with my resume writing service -- where I think we've gone from offering 2 packages, to 3, to none (custom-only), back to 2, back to 3, and for now to 6, with a frequent temptation to go back to 3. And Karan and I have wrestled with the "choice question" on our customer review site -- where I've seen in usability sessions that offering multiple ways to respond to a recommendation request causes confusion and frustration.

My datasets are unfortunately too small to provide clear evidence. But with the growing ability to measure conversions and sales so effectively on the Web, and the growing ability to run scientific A/B tests (e.g. show 50% of website visitors 5 choices, show the other 50% 2 choices), large companies with large dollars at stake surely must have some results on this that would illuminate the debate -- so that those of us interested don't have to keep reading about jam. Or have I just missed them?

Wikipedia's declining volunteer base

For many people like me, Wikipedia is the most successful example of opening content creation up to the masses and empowering and motivating volunteers to contribute high quality work. So this recent front page story from the WSJ is interesting, and a little troubling:

Volunteers have been departing the project that bills itself as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" faster than new ones have been joining, and the net losses have accelerated over the past year. In the first three months of 2009, the English-language Wikipedia suffered a net loss of more than 49,000 editors, compared to a net loss of 4,900 during the same period a year earlier ...

As a few people from Wikipedia point out, the decline in the number of participants isn't necessarily a bad thing; the real question is, are entries and quality and usefulness to readers continuing to go up? Maybe a smaller number of participants can do this better than the earlier (or current) large number. But at the very least, the numbers and anecdotes suggest that the organization needs to do a better job attracting, or not scaring off, new participants -- especially among women, people over 35, and tech novices.

Virtual interns

As we start recruiting for our first Marketade interns, this recent WSJ article on virtual internships caught my eye, and makes me wonder: for most internet-based small businesses, is it better to have an A-talent intern working remotely, or a B-talent intern working with you face-to-face? The article mentions the site Urban Interns, which I'm going to try out.

Stanford web credibility guidelines

A few years ago, my friend Paul sent me this great list from B.J. Fogg and the Web Credibility team at Stanford. Unlike a lot of top 10 tips lists, this one is backed by rigorous research. High recommended -- I revisit them every few months.

Patriots vs. Colts and data vs. intuition

I was shocked when I watched the ESPN highlights of the recent Patriots-Colts game. With 2 minutes left in the game -- leading by 6 points -- and with the ball on their own 28, Pats coach Bill Belichick decided to go for it on 4th-and-2.

I've always disliked Belichick and so I was happy to see the Pats fail to convert on the play, and then look silly giving the ball to Peyton Manning with less than 30 yards to go for a touchdown. The Colts scored a TD and won the game, 35-34, while Belichick looked up at the sky.

But as it turns out, Belichick's call was the right one -- if you go by the data and probabilities. As one Fifth Down blog post in the NY Times puts it, "Twenty years ago…..case closed. It was a bad move. The people with the pens and microphones had spoken. Heck……ten years ago this would have been the case. But, a funny thing happened. The N.F.L. stat geeks ... fought back."

Here's a leading geek's analysis, quoted in another Fifth Down post:

Scenario 1: The custom case for the specific offensive and defensive features of the Colts and the Patriots.

Going for it: 77.3% (Probability of Winning for the Patriots)
Punting: 75.7%

Scenario 2: The case for two N.F.L. average and equal teams in every offensive and defensive category:

Going for it: 78.6% (Probability of Winning for the Patriots)
Punting: 76.4%

Scenario 3: The break-even point on the decision occurs when the team with the ball is about 5 percent weaker than N.F.L. average on offense and 5 percent better than N.F.L. average on defense, while the opposing team is 5 percent better than N.F.L. average on defense and 5 percent worse than average on offense.

The results of Scenarios #1 and #2 clearly point in favor of Belichick’s decision, although not by nearly as wide a margin as we might have expected. Additionally, the analysis in Scenario #3 really cements the case for “going for it.” Applying this benchmark and comparing it with the far different characteristics of the Patriots and the Colts makes the call all the more clear.

Thumbs up to Belichick on a courageous and correct call last night.

In his Freakonomics column, Steven Levitt praises Belichick not only for making the right call, but for doing so knowing that "if it failed, he would be subjected to endless criticism." In other words, he cares more about winning than his reputation.

For fans of data-driven decision-making -- in business, sports, or any other sphere -- this is a fascinating case study, and I find myself liking Bill B. just a little more these days.

NY Times small-business guide to using Facebook

A few good tips from "How to Market Your Business With Facebook" from the NY Times:

• Identify a short list of goals before you begin.

• Show some personality in your page.

• Don't shill. Use your page to engage-and trust that sales will follow.

• Use Facebook data to analyze your customer demographics.

Google Webmaster Blog: meta keyword tag doesn't matter

I recently did some SEO work for a client, whose web designer later suggested I didn't know what I was doing because I hadn't touched the site's meta keywords. So I went looking for a credible source stating that meta keywords don't matter. I didn't have to look hard; a little over a month ago, Google's Matt Cutts posted this hard-to-misinterpret announcement on the Google Webmaster Central Blog: "Google does not use the meta keyword tag in web ranking". Matt McGee captures the significance of this post in his Search Engine Land column:

Google is telling the world what every seasoned webmaster and search marketer should already know: The keywords meta tag has no impact whatsoever on how Google’s search engine ranks pages. None. Zilch. Nada. And while Google often needs to be somewhat ambiguous when talking about how it ranks pages, the message in today’s blog post is perfectly clear ...

Here's are some excerpts from Google's blog post:

Q: Does Google ever use the "keywords" meta tag in its web search ranking?

A: In a word, no. Google does sell a Google Search Appliance, and that product has the ability to match meta tags, which could include the keywords meta tag. But that's an enterprise search appliance that is completely separate from our main web search. Our web search (the well-known search at Google.com that hundreds of millions of people use each day) disregards keyword metatags completely. They simply don't have any effect in our search ranking at present.

Q: Does this mean that Google ignores all meta tags?

A: No, Google does support several other meta tags. This meta tags page documents more info on several meta tags that we do use. For example, we do sometimes use the "description" meta tag as the text for our search results snippets, as this screenshot shows:

Even though we sometimes use the description meta tag for the snippets we show, we still don't use the description meta tag in our ranking.

Q: Does this mean that Google will always ignore the keywords meta tag?

A: It's possible that Google could use this information in the future, but it's unlikely. Google has ignored the keywords meta tag for years and currently we see no need to change that policy.

Redbox and limited choice

Interesting article from Rob Walker in the NYT on redbox's success in offering a limited selection of DVDs to consumers.

"In the venture's early days, [president Mitch] Lowe says, redbox actually experimented with different models, offering wider selections, including classic and foreign films (because the kiosks can hold 600 discs). 'What we found,' he says, 'is that today there are so many choices out there, consumers are really looking for some help and guidance'."

If you've read Barry Schwartz's work, this will sound familiar.

WSJ on volunteer advisers

Have a startup and want to tap into free advisers? The WSJ has some options: "Some small-business owners say their firms are surviving tough economic times thanks in part to advisory boards they regularly turn to for fresh perspectives and support."

Inc. on microtesting

One of my favorite parts of The 4-Hour Workweek is Tim Ferriss's discussion of microtesting new products -- marketing something cheaply and scientifically online to see if you get interested buyers before you go produce it. It's very consistent with ideas I've long been attracted to, in particular: predicting the future is impossible, and it's better to get user feedback on products as early and often as possible. And it's an especially appealing approach for startups and small businesses that can't afford to spend a lot on developing products that go bust.

A recent article in Inc. magazine - "The Bootstrapper's Guide to Launching New Products" - offers some good examples of "microtesting" or "minimum viable product." "What sets this approach apart from practices like using focus groups," the article points out, "is that companies base product development decisions not just on what customers say they want but on how they vote with their wallets."

Giving new products a familiar ring

Good piece in the NY Times - from a Harvard B School professor - on the importance of positioning new products within familiar categories:

"Humans instinctively sort and classify things. It’s how we make sense of a complex world. So when companies develop innovative products and services that don’t obviously fit into established categories, managers need to help people understand what comparison to make. Without that step, potential customers might just walk away wondering, 'What is it?'"

Wash Post on digital nomads

I recently came across this fun front page article from a couple months back in the Post on the rise of 'digital nomads', people who "work -- clad in shorts, T-shirts and sandals -- wherever they find a wireless Web connection to reach their colleagues via instant messaging, Twitter, Facebook, e-mail and occasionally by voice on their iPhones or Skype."

The article describes people who work from coffee shops, hotel lobbies, the DC-NY buses, and rooftop pools (though no mention of my favorite nomad spot: public libraries and law school libraries). Despite being a nomad for two years now, I'd never heard of "jellies" until this article: "Nomads who want the feel of working with officemates have begun co-working in public places or at the homes of strangers. They work laptop-by-laptop in living rooms and coffee shops, exchanging both idle chitchat and business advice with people who all work for different companies. The gatherings are called jellies, after a bowl of jelly beans the creators were eating when they came up with the name." Interesting.

The article closes by mentioning my current main nomad spot:

"Slightly more formal co-working centers have opened across the country, including Affinity Lab in office space above the Diner in Adams Morgan. Ads on the wall at Tryst offer space to the fully-evolved nomad who doesn't want a formal office but still wants a community of people to swap ideas with -- and a fax machine. Members pay $235 a month to work in a communal room -- no desk included -- or $575 for a desk. Users include designers, software startup entrepreneurs, nonprofit group staffers and an importer of Chilean wine."