Archives par mot-clé : advertising

Watch a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket launch 10 satellites into orbit

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch later today carrying a new batch of satellites into orbit for communications company Iridium. After takeoff, SpaceX will try to land the Falcon 9’s first stage — the 14-story high core of the rocket that contains the main engines and most of the fuel — on an autonomous drone ship in the Pacific Ocean. If successful, it’ll be the 13th time SpaceX has successfully landed one of these rocket stages, and the eighth time it’s performed the feat at sea.

This is the second launch SpaceX is attempting in one weekend — the quickest turnaround ever. (Launches are weeks or months apart, usually.) On Friday, SpaceX sent a Bulgarian communications satellite into space from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, in what the private spaceflight company called a “weekend doubleheader.” That flight was supposed to occur last weekend, but it was pushed back so that a valve could be replaced in the fairing, which is the cone at the top of the rocket that holds the satellite. On Sunday, Elon Musk said that the rocket has also been equipped with “significantly upgraded” fins made of titanium, which replaced aluminum fins that were prone to catching fire during reentry.

Today’s launch is part of Iridium’s plan to create a large constellation of 66 telecommunications satellites in lower-Earth orbit called Iridium NEXT. It will deliver mobile voice and data coverage all over the planet, including over the ocean and at the poles. The first 10 satellites were launched aboard a Falcon 9 rocket in January; today’s launch will bring the number of satellites in space to 20. When fully completed, the constellation will also be used to provide a minute-by-minute tracking system for airplanes.


The Falcon 9 rocket that launched the first 10 Iridium NEXT satellites in January
Photo by SpaceX

Iridium has six more launches scheduled with SpaceX over the following 12 months, CEO Matt Desch said during a call with reporters on June 19th. “Our network activity in space is really going to get a bit frenetic here in the coming months,” Desch said. As these new satellites go up, they will slowly replace the old-generation satellites — some of which have been in orbit since the 1990s.

All Iridium NEXT satellites will be launched on new Falcon 9 rockets — at least for now. Desch said he’s open to the possibility of launching on already-flown Falcon 9s, if the reused rockets can speed up the schedule. “Schedule for me is very, very important,” Desch said. “Cost and risk are aligned,” he added. “I believe the risk is low right now but it’s not zero, because it’s a new thing.”

SpaceX completed its first landing of a Falcon 9 first stage in December 2015, and has completed 12 so far, including one on Friday. Two of these recycled rockets have been successfully launched and landed so far. Friday’s rocket that carried the Bulgarian satellite to space was actually the same Falcon 9 that put the first 10 Iridium NEXT satellites in orbit in January.

Today’s Falcon 9 is scheduled to launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California at 4:25PM ET, with an instantaneous launch window. The backup date is Monday, June 26th at around the same time. Check back this afternoon to watch the mission live. The live broadcast begins 20 minutes before launch.

Senate Republicans face key week as more senators waiver in their support for health care bill

Senate Republicans and the White House are facing down an increasingly daunting challenge to secure the votes necessary to pass legislation before the July 4 congressional recess that would make dramatic changes to President Obama’s signature health care law.

At least five Republicans have already come out against their party’s bill — which can only afford to lose two votes — and over the weekend more began expressing serious reservations and skepticism about the proposal, saying they would like more time to debate and tweak the plan.

A key moment will arrive early this week when the Congressional Budget Office releases an analysis of the bill estimating how many people could lose coverage under the Republican plan, what impact it might have on insurance premiums and how much money it could save the government.

The stalled Republican effort to pass a sweeping rewrite of the Affordable Care Act was further threatened Sunday when Republican senators from opposite sides of the party’s ideological spectrum voiced their disapproval, imperiling hopes for a Senate vote this week and President Trump’s desire to fulfill a core campaign pledge. 

The mounting dissatisfaction leaves the White House and Senate Republican leaders in a difficult position. In the coming days, moves to narrow the scope of the overhaul could appeal to moderates but anger conservatives, who believe the legislation does not go far enough to repeal and replace Obamacare. 

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) on Sunday expressed deep concerns about how the bill would cut expanded Medicaid funding for states, a key pillar of the Affordable Care Act that several centrists in the Senate are wary of rolling back, saying on ABC’s “This Week” that she worries about “what it means to our most vulnerable citizens.”

Collins also said she is concerned about the bill’s impact on the cost of insurance premiums and deductibles, especially for older Americans. 

“I’m going to look at the whole bill before making a decision,” she said, later adding, “it’s hard for me to see the bill passing this week.”

Underscoring the challenge facing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), speaking on the same Sunday show, also voiced concerns with the bill — but for entirely different reasons.

Paul — who, along with fellow Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Mike Lee of Utah have already said they cannot support the current bill — rejected the Republican plan for not being more fiscally austere, but said that in the face of an impasse, he could support legislation that simply repeals Obama’s health care law.

“I’ve been telling leadership for months now I’ll vote for a repeal,” Paul said on ABC’s “This Week.” “And it doesn’t have to be a 100 percent repeal. So, for example, I’m for 100 percent repeal, that’s what I want. But if you me 90 percent repeal, I’d probably vote for it. I might vote for 80 percent repeal.”

But simply repealing Obamacare or large parts of the law without making any other changes to the nation’s health care system is not a realistic political possibility at the moment.

McConnell and his team remain convinced they must call a vote soon to avoid having health-care discussions dominate the summer, when they aim to move on to tax reform legislation. In their circle, further talks are also seen as an opening for others to bolt.

“It’s not going to get any easier,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) told reporters on the sidelines of a three-day seminar organized by billionaire industrialist Charles Koch in Colorado Springs. “And yes, I think August is the drop deadline, about August 1st.”

As senators took to the airwaves Sunday, there were developments behind the scenes as GOP leaders made calls and worked to cobble together votes. But no firm decisions on changes were made.

There was new talk among key GOP figures about winning over moderates by altering the bill’s Medicaid changes, according to two people involved who would not speak publicly. By tweaking how federal funding is determined for Medicaid recipients and linking aspects to the medical component of the consumer price index, there is a belief that some moderates could be swayed, since they want assurances of funding should the cost of care rise, the people said.

Then would come the tightrope: If some senators can be convinced to support revisions to the Medicaid portion of the bill, several conservatives are warning that unless their amendments are included, they are unlikely to support the legislation. The hope is that there is a combination of those Medicaid changes and amendments from conservatives that could pave way to passage.

Progress in these conversations could postpone a vote for a couple weeks until after July 4 holiday, the people said, but Senate leadership and the White House want to move this week if they can.

The administration itself, meanwhile, is sending mixed signals. An allied leadership PAC is launching an intensive advertising campaign against Sen. Dean Heller (R.-Nev.), currently a no vote, to pressure him to support the bill. And on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, said that Trump “is working the phones, he’s having personal meetings, and he’s engaging with leaders.”

Still, the president’s own support for the legislation has at times been lukewarm. Over the weekend, he acknowledged he once called the initial Republican bill, which originated in the House, “mean” in a private meeting, but also urged senators on Twitter to pass it. 

Trump’s aides have seemed to signal that the White House is more likely to support the final Senate proposal over the original House bill going forward, and speaking this weekend on “Fox Friends,” Trump said, “I want to see a bill with heart.”

Conway added that “the president and the White House are also open to getting Democratic votes,” and asked, “Why can’t we get a single Democrat to come to the table, to come to the White House, to speak to the president or anyone else about trying to improve a system that has not worked for everyone?”

But Democratic support seems unlikely. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), speaking on “This Week,” said Democrats would only sit down with Republicans if they stop trying repeal Obamacare. And in an interview with The Washington Post, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) spoke of trying to postpone a vote on the bill to mount a stronger fight against it.

“One of the strategies is to just keep offering amendments, to delay this thing and delay this thing at least until after the July 4 break,” Sanders said. “That would give us the opportunity to rally the American people in opposition to it. I think we should use every tactic that we can to delay this thing.”

On Sunday, there was also some confusion — or misdirection — about what exactly the Senate bill would do. Speaking on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R.-Pa.), claimed that Republican plan “will codify and make permanent the Medicaid expansion,” and added, “No one loses coverage.” His comments echoed those by Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, who told “This Week,” “These are not cuts to Medicaid.”

In fact — despite Trump’s campaign promise that he would not cut Medicaid — the Senate bill includes deep cuts to projected spending on the program, deeper even than the House bill over the long run, and is expected to leave millions without or unable to afford health insurance.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who surprised some Republicans by co-signing a letter asking for more changes to the bill, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that there was no hurry to vote before the end of June.

“There’s no way we should be voting on this next week. No way,” Johnson said. “I have a hard time believing Wisconsin constituents or even myself will have enough time to properly evaluate this, for me to vote for a motion to proceed.”

At the same time, Johnson said he was not a pure “no” on the bill.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who had criticized the process by which the new bill was crafted and had preferred his own compromise to extend most of the Affordable Care Act, struck a similar tone on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” After saying he was “undecided,” he clarified that small changes could win his vote.

“There are things in this bill that adversely affect my state, that are peculiar to my state,” said Cassidy. “If those can be addressed, I will. If they can’t be addressed, I won’t. So right now, I am undecided.”

Progressive activists spent the weekend warning that Republicans like Johnson and Cassidy could vote for the bill with minor tweaks. In Columbus, Ohio, at the second of three rallies Sanders and MoveOn.org organized to pressure swing state Republican senators, MoveOn’s Washington director Ben Wikler warned a crowd of at least 1000 activists that the protests of Senate Republicans might amount to Kabuki theater.

“This is the week when Mitch McConnell and Republicans are going to introduce these tiny amendments, and Republicans are going to say — oh, the bill is fixed! Oh, I can vote for it now!,” warned Wikler. “Are we going to let him get away with that?”

And looming over the discussions is another challenge: the Republican-controlled House, where any revised Senate bill would head and its ultimate fate would be decided. According to a White House official, Trump advisers are keeping in close touch with the conservative House Freedom Caucus — which helped tank the White House’s initial health care push — as the Senate considers the bill, making sure that whatever ends up passing could pass muster with House conservatives.

 David Weigel reported from Columbus, Ohio and James Hohmann reported from Colorado Springs.

Rumors are swirling that Justice Anthony Kennedy will soon retire from the Supreme Court


supreme court justice anthony kennedy
Associate
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joins other justices of the U.S.
Supreme Court for an official group portrait at the Supreme Court
Building in Washington, Thursday. June 1,
2017.

Associated Press/J. Scott
Applewhite


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court enters its final week of work
before a long summer hiatus with action expected on the Trump
administration’s travel ban and a decision due in a separation of
church and state case that arises from a Missouri church
playground.

The biggest news of all, though, would be if Justice Anthony
Kennedy were to use the court’s last public session on Monday to
announce his retirement.

To be sure, Kennedy has given no public sign that he will retire
this year and give President Donald Trump his second high court
pick in the first months of his administration. Kennedy’s
departure would allow conservatives to take firm control of the
court.

But Kennedy turns 81 next month and has been on the court for
nearly 30 years. Several of his former law clerks have said they
think he is contemplating stepping down in the next year or so.
Kennedy and his clerks were gathering over the weekend for a
reunion that was pushed up a year and helped spark talk he might
be leaving the court.

« Soon we’ll know if rumors of Kennedy’s retirement are accurate, »
one former Kennedy clerk, George Washington University law
professor Orin Kerr, said on Twitter Friday.

When the justices take the bench Monday, they are expected to
decide the case of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Missouri,
which was excluded from a state grant program to pay for soft
surfaces on playgrounds run by not-for-profit groups. The case is
being closely watched by advocates of school vouchers, who hope
the court will make it easier to use state money to pay for
private, religious schooling in states that now prohibit it.

Missouri has since changed its policy under Republican Gov. Eric
Greitens so that churches may now apply for the money.

Also expected in the next few days, though there’s no deadline by
which the court must decide, is a ruling on whether to allow the
administration to immediately enforce a 90-day ban on visitors
from six mostly Muslim countries.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, could
play a pivotal role in both the travel ban and church playground
cases.

In all, six cases that were argued between November and April
remain undecided. Three of those, all involving immigrants or
foreigners, were heard by an eight-justice court, before Gorsuch
joined the bench in April.

If the eight justices are evenly divided, those cases could be
argued a second time in the fall, with Gorsuch available to
provide the tie-breaking vote.

Senate health-care bill faces serious resistance from GOP moderates

A small group of moderate Republican senators, worried that their leaders’ health-care bill could damage the nation’s social safety net, may pose at least as significant an obstacle to the measure’s passage as their colleagues on the right.

The vast changes the legislation would make to Medicaid, the country’s broadest source of public health insurance, would represent the largest single step the government has ever taken toward conservatives’ long-held goal of reining in federal spending on health-care entitlement programs in favor of a free-market system.

That dramatic shift and the bill’s bold redistribution of wealth — the billions of dollars taken from coverage for the poor would help fund tax cuts for the wealthy — is creating substantial anxiety for several Republican moderates whose states have especially benefited from the expansion of Medicaid that the Affordable Care Act has allowed since 2014.

Their concerns that the legislation would harm the nation’s most vulnerable and cause many Americans to become uninsured have thrust into stark relief the ideological fault lines within the GOP. Though Senate conservatives were the first to threaten to torpedo the bill, contending that it is too generous, the potential loss of nearly half a dozen moderate lawmakers’ votes may be the main hurdle. Since the bill will get no support from Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can afford defections from no more than two Republicans as he tries to bring it to a vote this week.

His odds worsened Friday when Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), who is up for reelection next year, said he could not support the bill in its current form. Heller specifically cited its cuts to Medicaid, not just by ending its expansion in Nevada and 30 other states but by restricting government spending for the program starting in 2025.

This bill “is simply not the answer,” he declared, describing some of the 200,000 Nevadans who have gained health coverage through the expansion. He rhetorically asked whether the Republican plan will ensure that they have insurance in the future. “I’m telling you, right now it doesn’t do that,” he said.

Though three of the other four wavering GOP centrists also come from Medicaid-expansion states, not all were as explicit as Heller in their reactions after the Better Care Reconciliation Act was finally unveiled late last week. Both Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) said that they would evaluate it with an eye toward its effect on low-income residents.

“It needs to be done right,” Murkowski said in a tweet. “I remain committed to ensuring that all Alaskans have access to affordable, quality health care.”

Part of the pressure the moderates now face is that Medicaid consistently draws widespread support in surveys. A poll released Friday by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that three-fourths of the public, including 6 in 10 Republicans, said they have a positive view of the program. Just a third of those polled said they supported the idea of reducing federal funding for the expansion or limiting how much money a state receives for all beneficiaries.

Even among Republicans, the foundation found, only about half favor reversing the federal money for Medicaid expansion.

Congressional budget analysts plan to issue their projections as early as Monday on the legislation’s impact on the federal deficit and the number of Americans with insurance coverage. Already, proponents and critics alike are predicting that the Senate proposal would lead to greater reductions through the Medicaid changes than the estimated $834 billion estimated for a similar bill passed by House Republicans last month.

“The focus of Republican efforts largely has been on costs,” said Lanhee Chen, a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. “You do have a different set of issues that the two sides have been focused on, which partly explains why this has been such an intractable and difficult debate to find common ground on.”

See where the Senate health-care bill’s subsidy cuts will affect Americans most View Graphic See where the Senate health-care bill’s subsidy cuts will affect Americans most

Under the Senate GOP version, 2021 is when Medicaid’s transformation would begin. The expansion, which has provided coverage to roughly 11 million people, would be phased out. What is now an open-ended entitlement, with federal funding available for a specific share of whatever each state spends, would be converted to per capita payments or block grants.

Then, four years later, the federal government would apply an inflation factor to spending increases that would be equal to the urban consumer price index rather than the higher medical inflation rate used in the House bill.

“There has never been a rollback of basic services to Americans like this ever in U.S. history,” said Bruce Siegel, president of America’s Essential Hospitals, a coalition of about 300 hospitals that treat a large share of low-income patients. “Let’s not mince words. This bill will close hospitals. It will hammer rural hospitals, it will close nursing homes. It will lead to disabled children not getting services. . . . People will die.”

To some extent, the division within the GOP’s ranks reflects geography. Some of the most reticent senators come from states where health-care systems stand to lose the most financially if the bill passed.

According to an analysis by the Commonwealth Fund, hospitals in Nevada would be saddled over the next decade with at least double the costs in “uncompensated care” — bills for which neither an insurer nor a patient paid. It examined the House legislation but noted that the Senate bill would doubtless hit harder because of its deeper reductions in federal Medicaid payments.

Hospitals in West Virginia would suffer an even greater spike in uncompensated care, about 122 percent during the decade. But the analysis showed that the greatest damage would come in McConnell’s own state: Kentucky, which has had the nation’s largest Medicaid expansion under the ACA, would see a 165 percent jump in unpaid hospital bills.

Yet conservative Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), one of the bill’s champions, said it would establish “a very, very gradual and gentle transition to a normal inflation rate” for a program in which he said costs were spiraling out of control. Beyond Medicaid, it would permit private health plans to cover fewer services and would allow individuals and employers to eschew coverage without penalty — elements that its authors say could lower how much consumers pay for their insurance.

“The idea that there’s a sector of our economy that has to permanently have a higher inflation rate than the rest of our economy is ridiculous,” Toomey said Thursday. “I think that it’s absolutely essential to putting [Medicaid] on a sustainable path so that it will be there for future generations.”

Avik Roy, a conservative health expert who serves as president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, said the legislation’s proponents need to show “that competitive insurance markets can work for the poor and the vulnerable and the sick.”

People too often equate federal spending with establishing a safety net, when greater competition and a free market could produce better results at a lower cost, in Roy’s view. The Senate bill would extend “quite robust” tax credits to many people, he said, even to those living in poverty who were not eligible for Medicaid: “Republicans have a different view of what a safety net should look like.”

Pressure is coming from outside groups on the right. Though the four conservatives who have voiced opposition to the bill might be pushed hard — Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.), Mike Lee (Utah), Ted Cruz (Tex.) and Ron Johnson (Wis.) — Heller will be a special target. A super PAC, America First Policies, reportedly is planning a seven-figure ad buy just in Nevada.

But patient-advocacy organizations that focus on an array of diseases are intensifying their own lobbying on the bill, including running print and online ads in several key states. If one health issue has emerged as a flash point, however, it is the nation’s opioid epidemic.

Shatterproof, a national nonprofit organization focused on addressing addiction, estimates that 2.8 million people have gained access to substance-abuse treatment under Medicaid expansion. In Ohio alone, total federal funding provided 70 percent of the $939 million that the state spent to combat the epidemic last year.

Capito and Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) have asked the chamber’s Republican leaders to provide in the bill $45 billion over 10 years to address opioids; the measure currently provides $2 billion. But that amount, Shatterproof chief executive Gary Mendell said Friday, is less than a tenth of what experts predict will be needed over the next decade. And providing a designated fund while leaving millions uninsured makes little sense, he added.

Shatterproof just launched a six-figure advertising buy in Ohio, West Virginia and Maine — which is represented by another undecided Republican, Sen. Susan Collins — to urge the states’ senators to vote against the bill. Mendell noted that Portman has been a champion on substance-use treatment for years, and it was difficult to run ads targeting him.

“His people need to understand that this has to be a no vote,” Mendell said.

Specific constituencies aside, some policy experts regard the Senate’s plan as a wholesale reversal of the government’s path to offer health insurance to ever-wider groups of Americans, piece by piece. That started with the creation of Medicaid and Medicare as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society and could be ending with the ACA.

“This is bringing us back to where we were before 1965,” said Paul Starr, a Princeton University professor of sociology and public affairs who has written extensively about the history of U.S. health-care policy. “There is no longer the federal commitment to back up the states in terms of health care for the poor.”

Trump lashes out at Obama over latest report on Russian election meddling

President Trump on Saturday called out Obama administration officials for not taking stronger actions against Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, contradicting his past statements and suggesting without proof that they were trying to help Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

His tweets came after The Post revealed Friday that the Obama White House had received reports as early as August 2016 regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin’s direct involvement in the cyber campaign with instructions to defeat or damage Clinton and help to elect Trump, according to “sourcing deep inside the Russian government.”

The Obama administration would not publicly say Russia was attempting to interfere with the election until Oct. 7, and the news of Putin’s attempts to aid Trump would not surface until after the election.

Trump has long disputed that the Russians interfered with the election, calling it “all a big Dem HOAX” just this week.

But on Friday evening, after the publication of The Post’s article, Trump demanded to know why Obama hadn’t done more to stop the meddling.

He followed up with more tweets on Saturday, attempting to put the focus on Obama’s inaction.

The Post’s article explains in detail why Obama, who reportedly was gravely concerned by an August CIA report about the hacking,  managed to approve only “largely symbolic” sanctions before he left office.

Those reasons included partisan squabbling among members of Congress, initial skepticism by other intelligence agencies about the CIA’s findings, and an assumption that Clinton would win the election and follow up.

“We made the judgment that we had ample time after the election, regardless of outcome, for punitive measures,” a senior administration official said in the article.

Trump, however, raised his own theories.

He provided no explanation or evidence for why this would have helped Clinton.

The Post article recounts how Obama learned about the Russian intrusions and the administration’s attempts to find support to make the information public.

According to the article, less than a month after 20,000 stolen Democratic Party emails were leaked to the public, a CIA memo warned Obama that the hack had been ordered by Putin in an attempt to “defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee.”

Interviews with administration officials revealed that Obama directly confronted Putin over the allegations during a meeting of world leaders in China. He also ordered his deputies to safeguard the election and seek bipartisan support from congressional leaders to condemn Russia’s actions.

“The administration encountered obstacles at every turn,” write Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima and Adam Entous.

Complacency may have also undercut the administration’s efforts to punish Russia. Like many polls suggested, it believed Clinton would win despite the hacks.

By his final weeks, aside from warnings and rhetoric, Obama had  approved only narrow sanctions and a plan to plant “cyberweapons in Russia’s infrastructure” — if the next president so chose.

As one senior Obama official told The Post, “I feel like we sort of choked,” which Trump would quote in his tweet.

As he has with other newsmaking events, Trump used the article to argue that a months-long focus by the media, Congress and federal investigators on his campaign’s alleged ties to Russia has been misdirected.

“Focus on them, not T!” he tweeted Saturday afternoon.

For some Democratic lawmakers, meanwhile, the bombshell report affirmed what they said they had long suspected.

“Nothing like the extensive hacking effort and manipulation effort could occur without involvement,” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) told CNN. “Now we actually know: Yes, Putin directed it. … He had a specific goal to defeat Hillary Clinton.”

Some Republicans expressed concern about another country threatening democracy in the United States.

“The reality is, in two or four years, it will serve Vladimir Putin’s interest to take down the Republican Party,” Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) told CNN. “If we weren’t upset about it, we have no right to complain in the future.”

Email marketing up 83% since 2015, with 200% growth in B2B video …

Never underestimate the power of email – a cornerstone for both traditional marketing and consumer-facing market strategies that has seen an 83% growth in B2B and B2C markets since 2015.

According to new research released by Salesforce, who polled 3,500 global marketing leaders, at either a manger level or higher position for its fourth annual State of Marketing report, email experienced the largest surge in consumer-facing marketing programs, with email use by B2C marketers rising 106%. This surge indicates that marketers may be testing new channels in conjunction with proven ones to find combinations that work for their consumers. Marketers also report higher levels of awareness, engagement, and acquisition when combining email with additional marketing channels according to Salesforce.

The Salesforce report also found that video advertising has experienced the largest two-year growth in B2B marketing, with video use growing 204%. Email was the second-highest advertising channel in growth for B2C marketers, but trailed video advertising’s growth of 141%.

Video advertising was closely followed by SMS/text messaging, a channel that grew 197% in the B2B market. B2B email marketing, on the other hand, has only grown 56% since 2015.

A marked trend among high-performing marketers is that they are 12.8 times more likely to combine marketing efforts across channels such as email, mobile, and social. On average, marketing leaders today say that 34% of their budget is spent on channels they didn’t know existed five years ago and they expect that to reach 40% by 2019.

The reports also suggests that about half (51%) of the emails are identical messages to what they have broadcast in other channels. This is considered to be a missed opportunity for most marketers who may not be evolving fast enough between email and other channels based on customer behaviors or actions.

Additionally, 51% of respondents said their emails contain the same messages as other marketing channels, while 29% of email messages evolve across channels and customer actions.

As in previous report iterations, Salesforce analyzed the differences between self-identifying high-performing and low-performing marketers.

How to Boost Video Marketing for Your Startup

Social media is changing the way we share information, and marketers are taking advantage of the opportunity. Video is one of the fastest growing mediums for building brand image because it has the power to reinforce visually and connect emotionally.

According to the latest statistics, featuring video on a landing page can increase conversion by up to 80 percent. In an email, it can increase click-through by as much as 300 percent and 64 percent of viewers who watch a video are more likely to buy a product online.

On thing to keep in mind is that viewers watch online videos without sound, which is why marketers have to get the message across in subtitles. Storytelling is much more crucial now in case studies and testimonials.

Here is a list of six of the most effective ways to engage with the viewer and boost email open rates in 2017:

Go Live

Live video streaming is virtually everywhere. People use live video to go behind the scenes at their businesses or stream live from an event. By going live, you have the opportunity to conduct live interviews, answer questions and lead training sessions. Make sure to have fun with it, inform or be useful. Whichever way you go, streaming video is an excellent way to get across the personality and value of your brand in a way that connects with your audience.

Be Social

Odds are good that your current and prospective customers watch social video segments online every day on websites like YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, and more. To be effective, you have to tailor your marketing video for each audience and every channel. As you could guess, it should also be worthy of going viral.

Video marketing statistics you need to know

Ad it

No longer restrained to television advertising, ad videos can be powerful on your website or social media. Whatever the platform, marketers must adhere to certain advertising basics. Keep in mind, though, the video itself need not be a traditional pitch ad. Start with a concept and tell a story. Do a split test to see if one ad approach performs better than the other. Go with the winner.

Entertaining videos are effective and shareable. If possible, entertain your audience. Use music to set the mood, create a deeper connection, and make for a more memorable experience.

Interactive

Go a step further with interactive video. There are generally three types of interactive videos:

  • Branching: the viewer gets to choose what happens next
  • Tagging: these videos include clickable links to offer more details
  • Multi-View: it lets the viewer see the story from different angles

The most common places to find interactive video include websites, YouTube, advertising, computer games, and research. With interactive videos, you can actively engage the viewer and encourage them to stay with your brand for longer.

virtual reality gaming

virtual reality gaming

Immerse Viewers

Virtual reality (VR) video with headsets is a popular marketing tool because it immerses the viewer in more memorable content than standard video, and generates an emotional response. It’s different and a lot of fun.

Virtual reality can be formatted to simulate either real or animated environments. While VR is generally a tool for gaming, marketers are using VR to feature products, entertain and inform consumers, and demonstrate how a product or services fits into the viewer’s lifestyle.

While rather new to marketing, VR is already being used by a number of companies. VR videos put you right at the scene. You get to call the shots and explore, and they tell the stories.

Make Movies

By and large, companies are creating their own branded short films today, which run anywhere from two to twenty minutes. These films are not about product placement. They are genuine short films that entrance viewers from start to finish.

Branded films do not force the trademark or name on you. Instead, they are subtle and crafty.

You can post these films on YouTube, your company website, or other video websites. But there are other creative platforms for marketing, such as airplane flight programming and Netflix.

Video marketing is on its way to becoming an even more powerful tool in 2017. As new forms of video emerge, telling stories visually will be the way to stay relevant and ahead of the curve.

Read more ways to gain exposure for your startup through Tech.Co.

Camden flats: Hundreds of homes evacuated over fire risk fears

Media captionCamden residents react to tower block evacuations

More than 700 flats in tower blocks on an estate in the Swiss Cottage area of north-west London have been evacuated because of fire safety concerns.

Camden Council said people in four towers on the Chalcots estate were moved for « urgent fire safety works ».

The council added it was booking hotels but around 100 residents have spent the night on air beds in a leisure centre.

The estate’s cladding is similar to Grenfell Tower in west London, where a fire is feared to have killed 79.

Chalcots was refurbished between 2006 and 2009 by the same firm, Rydon, that oversaw work at Grenfell Tower in 2015-16.

Camden Council said it will remove external thermal cladding from five tower blocks on the Chalcots estate.

It also said there were concerns about the insulation of gas pipes going into flats, and fire doors.

The council initially announced the evacuation of one tower block, Taplow, but later extended the move to all five tower blocks it had checked.

In the early hours of Saturday morning, the council then announced that one of the five – Blashford – did not need to be evacuated, and residents could return.

Blashford is smaller and has « several different design elements ».

Media captionAir beds laid out in Swiss Cottage leisure centre

Residents of the estate attended a public meeting with council officials on Thursday evening.

The council’s Labour leader, Georgia Gould, said the decision to evacuate the buildings was made at 18:30 BST on Friday.

She said the fire service « told us they could not guarantee our residents’ safety in those blocks ».

Some residents said the first they heard of the evacuation was on the news.

The council has secured 270 hotel rooms so far. Emergency accommodation was set up at Swiss Cottage leisure centre and at the Camden Centre in King’s Cross.

« We’re encouraging all residents to stay with friends and family if they can, otherwise we’ll provide accommodation, » the council said.

« I know it’s difficult, but Grenfell changes everything and I just don’t believe we can take any risk with our residents’ safety and I have to put them first, » Ms Gould said.

Media captionSajid Javid: « Absolutely the right decision » to evacuate buildings

She said the work is expected to take three to four weeks. Residents will be allowed in at the weekend to collect more possessions under escort from the fire brigade.

Prime Minister Theresa May tweeted: « My thoughts are with residents being evacuated in Camden while their homes are made safe tonight. »

She said the government was « offering every support we can » to residents and officials working at the estate.


At the scene

Image copyright
EPA

Alex Regan, BBC News

As the sun set on Swiss Cottage, there was frustration among residents of the Chalcots estate.

With tower blocks being evacuated, the streets were teeming with neighbours, children, and cameramen.

Camden Council employees wearing hi-viz vests stood outside the Taplow tower, speaking to residents.

Some of them only realised their homes were being evacuated after hearing news reports.

Most were not in the mood to talk. One woman shouted angrily at a TV cameraman: « Can you tell me what’s going on? »


Media captionCamden Council head Georgia Gould: ‘Residents’ safety comes first’

Teacher Kim Price, who lives in Blashford tower with her 14-year-old son, said: « At 4pm today they said it would be okay and that all the checks were fine.

« And now all of a sudden the news is saying we should get out.

« We’ve had two letters in two days saying ‘you’re not safe’ then ‘you’re safe’. I don’t really know what to do. »

Edward Strange, who lives in an 11th floor flat with his wife and young daughter, said the evacuation was a « complete overreaction ».

He told the BBC there had been two previous fires in the block which were easily contained.

« I’ve got a young daughter, a wife and a cat, I’ve also got a job. They said it’d take four to six weeks. If the council says four to six weeks it’ll take four to six months. »

Among those evacuated was Peter Bertram, 94, who has lived on the estate for 46 years.

The former RAF airman, who served in World War Two, said having to leave his home at short notice was a « shock ».

« My neighbour told me ‘Get this and that’. It happened so quick, I don’t have the energy for that now. It’s an experience. »

Image copyright
EPA

Bob O’Toole, chair of Chalcots Estate residents’ association, told BBC Breakfast that contractors had been working overnight in several of the tower blocks.

« A lot of people are annoyed because of the way [the evacuation] was done. They’re saying it was left too late in the evening. But Camden Council didn’t get the information till late, and they acted on that as quickly as possible. »

Communities Secretary Sajid Javid said other areas, such as Plymouth and Manchester, had seen measures introduced such as 24-hour fire wardens and did not need evacuating.

« What was very different here is that the local fire service found multiple other failures in fire safety that should have already been in place in the towers, and as a result of that, they’ve made this quite correct decision. »

Mr Javid also said the government would « work with » any local authorities and housing associations that needed financial support to carry out necessary fire safety work in tower blocks.

« Public safety is absolutely paramount, you cannot put a price on people’s lives. So local authorities have to do whatever it takes to get their buildings safe. »

Image copyright
AFP

Image caption

The estate underwent a £66m refurbishment

Image caption

Samples from the tower blocks on the Chalcots estate were examined this week

Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow business secretary, said people who were in towers where cladding was being investigated would be « living in fear ».

« I’ve had hundreds of constituents contacting my office over the last week, asking whether the buildings they’re living in are safe.

« People need to give significant weight to the voice of residents, and if they do want to be moved, if they feel unsafe and haven’t been reassured, then provision should be put in place [to move them]. »

Camden Council agreed a contract with Rydon Construction to refurbish the Chalcots estate in May 2006 at a cost of £66m.

The work took more than three and a half years. Five towers received new cladding, and 711 flats were modernised with new wiring, heating, kitchens and bathrooms.

Friday night’s announcement came as the Metropolitan Police said the Grenfell Tower fire started in a fridge-freezer, and outside cladding and insulation failed safety tests.

A national operation to identify buildings with cladding similar to that used in Grenfell Tower has seen local authorities send samples for independent tests.

The Department for Communities and Local Government said 14 residential high-rise buildings in nine local authority areas have now been found with cladding that raises safety concerns.


Do you live in one of the affected tower blocks on the Chalcots estate in Camden Council? Email us at haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk

You can send your pictures and video to

You can also contact us in the following ways:

Frustrated Dems say Obama botched Russia response

The Obama administration is under fresh scrutiny for its response to Russian meddling in the election after new details emerged this week about how the White House weighed its actions against the 2016 political environment.

Then-President Obama was too cautious in the months leading up to the election, frustrated Democratic lawmakers and strategists say. 

“It was inadequate. I think they could have done a better job informing the American people of the extent of the attack,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee who co-chairs the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee.

And even after the election was over, they say, the penalties Obama levied were too mild to appropriately punish what by all accounts was an unprecedented attack on a U.S. election.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), another House Intelligence member, called the penalties “barely a slap on the wrist.” Sen. John McCainJohn McCainFrustrated Dems say Obama botched Russia response Coats: Trump seemed obsessed with Russia probe The Hill’s Whip List: Senate ObamaCare repeal bill MORE (R-Ariz.), who supports tougher sanctions Russia, said in a statement Friday that the administration “abjectly failed to deter Russian aggression” and “failed to impose any meaningful costs on Russia.”

Some Republicans argue the Obama administration only started to take the Russia threat seriously after President Trump had won the election.

Trump has called the influence operation a “hoax” and dismissed the various inquiries into Russian interference in the election — which include looking for possible collusion between his campaign and Moscow — as a “witch hunt.”

“By the way, if Russia was working so hard on the 2016 Election, it all took place during the Obama Admin. Why didn’t they stop them?” Trump tweeted Thursday.

The Obama administration announced on Oct. 7 that the theft and release of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails was part of a widespread campaign “intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.” 

But it was not until January that it issued a separate declassified intelligence report that assessed Moscow was attempting to tip the election in t Trump’s favor — and only in December did Obama approve a modest package of retaliatory sanctions and expel a compound of Russian diplomats.

Former Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson on Wednesday told lawmakers that the White House held back on responding to Russia because it didn’t want to play into fears, propagated by then-candidate Trump, that the election would be “rigged.”

“One of the candidates, as you’ll recall, was predicting that the election was going to be rigged in some way,” Johnson said. “And so we were concerned that, by making the statement, we might in and of itself be challenging the integrity of the election process itself.”

Trump had repeatedly claimed that the outcome of the election would be “rigged” against him, alleging widespread voter fraud and inaccurate polling. He provided no evidence to back up his claims, but critics feared that his rhetoric could undermine public trust in the outcome of the election. 

On Friday, The Washington Post published a detailed post-mortem of the administration’s decision-making process that showed the former president agonizing over how to prevent politicization of the threat — and arguably failing, critics say.

While Democrats appreciated Obama’s sensitivity to the potential appearance of partisanship, they say the Russian influence campaign should have been treated like any other national security threat, without respect to politics. 

“I understand the analysis, but look where we are right now. This was the worst mess our democracy has been in since the Civil War,” Swalwell said.

Other onlookers point to then-ongoing and extremely delicate negotiations with Russia over a ceasefire in Syria. The Obama administration publicly levied blame on Russia for the DNC hack and the wider interference campaign just a few days after former Secretary of State John KerryJohn KerryFrustrated Dems say Obama botched Russia response Budowsky: Dems madder than hell Tillerson: ‘My view didn’t change’ on Paris climate agreement MORE officially suspended those talks.

“I think the Obama administration figured, we have to deal with the Russians in the Middle East and they didn’t want the stuff with the hacking to interfere with that,” said Democratic strategist Brad Bannon. “But I think that was a mistake because if voters don’t trust the integrity of the electoral system, we’ve got nothing left.”

Johnson defended the White House’s response, arguing the administration repeatedly banged the drum on election cybersecurity throughout the summer and fall but was appropriately leery of undermining trust in the integrity of the election.

The Oct. 7 statement, Johnson said, was one in a series of public statements — but it was overshadowed in the media by the leak of the “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump spoke of grabbing women by the genitals.

Other former officials are less confident that Obama went far enough in his response. 

“It is the hardest thing about my entire time in government to defend,” a former senior official involved in the deliberations on Russia told The Post. “I feel like we sort of choked.”

Consumer issues stemming from the GOP health care initiative

WASHINGTON — Republicans in full control of government are on the brink of history-making changes to the nation’s health care system. The impact for consumers would go well beyond “Obamacare.”

Former President Barack Obama’s signature law is usually associated with subsidized insurance markets like HealthCare.gov. But the Affordable Care Act also expanded Medicaid.

Not only would the GOP legislation scale back coverage through the insurance markets and phase out the Medicaid expansion, it would also make fundamental changes to the broader Medicaid program. The federal-state program covers low-income people, from newborns to elderly nursing home residents, from special-needs kids to young adults caught in the opioid epidemic.

House Republicans have passed their health care bill, and Senate GOP leaders are driving toward a vote next week. President Donald Trump is waiting, eager to deliver on a campaign promise to repeal the law.

Against fast-moving developments, a look at some major issues for consumers.

WHY MEDICAID MATTERS

As health care costs have kept climbing, employers cut back on coverage, and Medicaid passed Medicare as the nation’s largest public insurance program. It now covers about 70 million people, including children and able-bodied adults mostly served by private managed care plans.

The GOP’s biggest Medicaid change involves limiting future federal financing. Since its inception, Medicaid has been an open-ended entitlement, with Washington matching a share of what each state spends. Instead, Republicans propose a per-beneficiary cap.

In addition, the GOP would phase out added financing that Obama’s law provided as an incentive for states to expand the program and cover more low-income adults. About 11 million are covered by the expansion.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the House bill would reduce federal Medicaid spending by $834 billion over 10 years, and the program would cover about 14 million fewer people by 2026, a 17 percent reduction.

Governors of both parties have warned Congress that would mean a cost shift to states that undermines coverage for the vulnerable.

Medicaid limits got very little attention in the 2016 presidential campaign. The idea was a relatively late addition to Trump’s talking points. Indeed, candidate Trump had started out promising no cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.

Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a longtime GOP adviser, says the Republican approach is “180 degrees different in its economic and budgetary philosophy,” from the course steered by Obama. The Medicaid limit would move the nation closer to putting public health care programs on a budget, fiscal discipline that conservatives say is long overdue.

But the human consequences could be politically volatile. “No one wins on health care policy,” observed Holtz-Eakin.

WHAT DOCTORS ARE SAYING

Groups representing doctors and hospitals are overwhelmingly opposed to the Republican approach, because it’s likely to result in millions more uninsured people. Consumer organizations like AARP are also opposed.

Under Obama, the nation’s uninsured rate dropped below 9 percent, a historic low. Progress has stalled, partly because “Obamacare” is politically divisive. Now, the uninsured rate may start climbing again, because both the House and Senate bills cut federal financing and repeal an unpopular requirement to carry health insurance.

It “would have a profoundly negative impact on Americans,” said John Meigs, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Some Republicans argue that a Medicaid card or an “Obamacare” policy means little because either the doctor doesn’t accept notoriously low Medicaid fees, or high deductibles under the health law keep patients from coming in.

But doctors see a health insurance card as a ticket into the system, so patients can be screened for chronic conditions that can ultimately lead to serious illnesses. Obama’s law made many preventive services free of charge to the patient.

Dr. Mott Blair of Wallace, N.C., recalls a patient who got a colonoscopy that found a polyp, which undetected could have led to colon cancer.

“Now we are able to bring them in and get their blood sugars down, their blood pressure down,” Blair said in a recent interview. “They’re not going to have a disastrous complication like a stroke or a heart attack, at least not for the foreseeable future.”

PRIVATE INSURANCE CHANGES

Republicans would make no significant changes to employer-provided coverage, which remains the mainstay of private insurance.

They focus instead on the market for individual policies, which Obama’s ACA sought to reform by providing subsidies, setting requirements for comprehensive coverage, and creating online markets where consumers could compare plans. An estimated 17 million to 20 million people have individual policies. About 10 million are in the ACA’s markets.

“Obamacare’s” results have been mixed, with lower enrollment than expected, big losses for many insurers, and sharp premium increases. The situation varies from state to state, with healthy markets in some and others struggling to hang on to insurers. Consumers who are not entitled to subsidies can face shockingly high premiums.

Both the House and Senate bills would keep subsidies for private insurance, although with considerably less money. The House and Senate formulas for subsidies differ. States would be able to seek waivers from federal insurance requirements.

The Senate bill takes immediate steps to stabilize insurance markets for the next two years.

Over the long run, premiums for younger people are expected to come down. But older adults and people who require comprehensive coverage are likely to pay more.

“Low-income people will end up paying higher premiums for plans that have bigger deductibles, compared to today,” said Larry Levitt of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, commenting on the Senate bill. “Older people who are now getting premium subsidies would get substantially less help, but younger people would get more.”

Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.