Archives par mot-clé : video

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.

Top 5 Video Marketing Practices for 2017 – Adrants

video_marketing.jpg

Looking back at 2016, the year was one of the biggest yet for video marketing. More and more outlets adopted this form of advertising than ever before, and this massive adoption rate created new practices and trends that no one really saw coming.

Although all forms of marketing change and adapt over time, few go through changes as quickly as that of video marketing. The Internet Age is one that doesn’t slow down for anyone, and this is extremely applicable when talking about online video advertising.

While the core principles and practices will always remain true, the way in which we approach video marketing has seen some big evolutions that you need to properly adhere to if you want to stay ahead of the curve throughout the year. Here are the top 5 video marketing practices that you need to be implementing in 2017.

1. Live streaming

Live streaming has become huge. Sites such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and others popularized the idea of live broadcasting you and the world around you, and this is something that doesn’t show any sign of going away soon.

During 2016, we saw companies along the lines of Chevrolet, Disney, Buzzfeed, EA Sports, Ari BnB, and others adapt some sort of live streaming as part of their video marketing tactics. More companies have already jumped on the live streaming bandwagon in 2017, and all signs point to even more adopting it in the future.

A report from Tubular shows that Facebook’s live streaming activity increased by 200,000+ active users between January and June of last year, and YouTube’s live streaming service saw an increase of a massive 80%.

This is easily the biggest trend in video marketing right now, and as such, it’s important that you start working it into your own campaign so you don’t get left behind.

2. Virtual reality and 360-degree videos

Also referred to as immersive video content, video clips that can be viewed in 360-degrees on a device or feature some sort of virtual/augmented reality aspect boomed quite a bit throughout 2016. It’s been proven that people are sold on the idea of being able to completely engage themselves in different types of content, and this sort of deep engagement can be used to showcase richer and more fulfilling ad experiences as well.

Incorporating ads and marketing videos into this sort of form factor is still a relatively new endeavor, but it’s another trend that is still going strong at full speed ahead. And, with it being so young, jumping into the game now will give you an edge over competitors that decide to wait things out and see where this immersive video thing ends up.

3. Personalize your videos for your audience

With video becoming such a popular form of marketing, it means that everyone and their dog is creating some sort of video content for their marketing campaign. However, something that not everyone is truly taking advantage of is the power of personalized marketing videos.

Video personalization is specifically tailoring your video content to the audience and people who will be viewing it. The benefits of personalized video, including increased customer engagement and longer video viewing times, are far too great to overlook it.

Companies such as Nike and ATT have already taken note of this trend and started to implement personalized video into their own campaigns, and with it working so well for big names like these, there’s no reason it won’t work for you and your brand as well

4. Carefully study and understand video analytics

We’ve had access to video analytics for a number of years now, but if you aren’t using them to their full potential in 2017, you might as well not even bother with video marketing at all.

Video analytics provide you with a deep understanding of your audience and how much of an impression your content is making, and you can use this information to help make your videos even more powerful than they currently are.

Creating and kicking out videos however you see fit is one thing, but creating videos based off of what your analytics are telling you is an entirely different ballgame — the ballgame that you should and need to be a part of.

5. Work with a professional

Handling all of your video marketing on your own end can be rewarding, but it can also be extremely stressful and tiring.

This doesn’t mean you don’t have any good ideas or video-making skills, but if you want to ensure that the content you’re kicking out is as good as it can be, it’s critical that you work with a video marketing agency to elevate your content to the next level.

With more and more people adopting video marketing in 2017, trying to stand out with quality content is more important than ever. With a trusted agency at your side, this is a very achievable and plausible goal.

Final Thoughts

There isn’t and never will be a one-size-fits-all answer to rocking video marketing, but there are tips and tricks you can follow based on what’s currently taking place in the advertising industry. By following the 5 tips described in this guide, you can be fully prepared and ready to absolutely rock your video marketing campaign now and throughout the rest of 2017.

This guest post was written by VideoRemix, a video software company that allows users to create, edit, personalize, and publish production-quality video campaigns to engage their audience.

Why video marketing is a hot topic for all entrepreneurs


Video marketing is only as expensive as the budget you’re working with.



Online marketing is a dynamic business but not always unpredictable. For years now we’ve seen consistent trends that indicate certainties such as users are used to watching ads while browsing the internet and now more than ever those videos influence their purchasing habits.

To help those on the fence with regards to their own video marketing we’ve put together a list of answers to commonly asked questions.

Is video marketing expensive?

Video marketing is only as expensive as the budget you’re working with. There are lots of ways to create effective videos that don’t cost you anything other than your time. You won’t be butting heads with industry leaders right away and as your marketing efforts help grow your business so should you grow the budget.

When it comes to making your videos focus on the value of the content over the presentation. Getting too creative can be a bad thing if it limits your ability to convey your message.

Where should you use video marketing?

Include video in your page content

A study by Mist showed that having a video on your landing page increased your chances of being found on page 1 for your targeted key phrases by 53%.

Having a page 1 SERP listing is a challenge and if you’re in a highly competitive industry where a conversion is highly valuable then it becomes a constant struggle against your competitors.

Increasing your page 1 rank chances by 53% makes a strong case for including video in your online marketing.

Include video with your blog posts

You spend a lot of time on your blog posts and the content can have just as much value as a landing page. Why not include the info as a video and increase the chances of that information reaching more people?

When you create blog content that users love they link to it in their own content marketing. Anyone marketing online knows the value of a strong link from a reputable website. SEO authority moz.com found that by providing a video along with the blog’s text and images you expand your reach by 3X and that means 3X the user and 3X the link earning.

Should video marketing replace your blog?

Generally no but it should be made a part of it. While online videos represent 69% of all global consumer online traffic in 2017 and 69% is obviously not a number you can ignore that’s not to say your industry is necessarily on the high end of the trend towards video.

It’s likely still trending that way but don’t let it override your established efforts. User’s expectations and habits vary per industry and niche within so add it to what you’re doing rather than switching over altogether.

How do you know if video marketing is right for you?

Try some A/B testing between pages and posts and see how your engagement is with your users. You likely won’t affect your rank too much with just 1 video so check your Google Analytics to evaluate the performance.

Additionally, for further insight, you can also utilize the analytics from social platforms you share the content through. Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, and YouTube all have their own stats you can review to see how well your content did once you added a video.

You can even reuse old content by adding a video and sharing it again. Then look at the first round of marketing’s stats vs. the stats after you added your video.

Bonus tip for marketing videos towards women

Marketing to women? A recent study by adeliestudios.com found 83% of Moms turn to the Internet when they need answers.

It makes sense that if the answer to any question a busy mom may ask is on your website then you should have an answer that’s easy to receive. And that means including a video with your content.

Someone in a rush who wants an easy answer could really be assisted by having that answer in a quick, user-friendly format.

Adding a video that covers the answer you have in your content could easily mean the difference between a click back and a new lead so makes sure you have a video option if you are in a position to answer something a Mom might need a quick answer to.

DISCLAIMER: This article expresses my own ideas and opinions. Any information I have shared are from sources that I believe to be reliable and accurate. I did not receive any financial compensation in writing this post, nor do I own any shares in any company I’ve mentioned. I encourage any reader to do their own diligent research first before making any investment decisions.

It’s time for SMBs to go all in on social and mobile video

Why is video still a thorn in the side of small businesses?

Even before the explosion of brand engagement via relatively recent channels such as Facebook Video, Periscope, and Snapchat’s self-serve video advertising platform, SMB (small and medium-sized business) marketers have traditionally struggled with committing to a long-term video strategy.

After all, video content represents unexplored territory for many marketers who considered blogging or social media to be their bread and butter. Video was always primarily for larger brands with more robust budgets for production shoots and Hollywood-caliber editing talent.

Consider the most recent monthly YouTube channel leaderboard from Socialbakers:

The top five is dominated by mainstream entertainment brands, which makes sense, but who invited this “Ryan ToysReview” to the party?

Data from Social Blade reveals that as recently as two years ago, Ryan ToysReview’s YouTube presence didn’t exist. In fact, if we go back six years, Ryan himself didn’t even exist.

Image source: Social Blade

Clearly, the marketing world has reached a turning point when it comes to video, and even DIY personal brands and marketers from smaller companies are realizing that they need to figure out how they can get in on the action.

How the democratization of video looks in 2017

Small businesses are hunting for ways to integrate video into their marketing without blowing out their budgets or wasting tons of time. As a result, new platforms are emerging to provide SMBs with streamlined access to better tools that make it easier to churn out professional-grade video assets at scale.

That’s exactly what Slidely is doing to the benefit of marketers scared off by traditional video content. The company’s newly launched Promo by Slidely web app lets users create video content prime for social sharing, minus the headaches involved with tedious storyboarding, footage acquisition and editing.

Promo was designed to combine professional-grade, scalable video clip creation with affordability. The platform provides users access to over 2 million high-definition videos from the Getty archives, a full library of rights-cleared music and a user-friendly interface to add custom text and a logo in a snap. Rather than focus on major productions, Promo was created as a solution for marketers who want to post new video content to their social media presences with consistency over time.

“Video isn’t a one-play gig,” Tom More, the CEO of Slidely, recently told Inc. “It needs commitment and consistency. You can’t put all this money and effort into one video, thinking that sole piece of content will solve everything for your company. It’s not going to work.”

At the same time, platforms such as Facebook Live have blown up in a big way among small business owners. Live video via Facebook is watched three times longer than recorded broadcasts, and more and more businesses and brands are hopping onboard the live bandwagon.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg clearly saw the writing on the wall regarding the power of live video, as noted in an oft-cited interview with BuzzFeed last year. Said Zuckerberg:

We’re entering this new golden age of video … I wouldn’t be surprised if you fast-forward five years and most of the content that people see on Facebook and are sharing on a day-to-day basis is video.

Zuckerberg’s (self-fulfilling) premonition seems to go hand in hand with the idea that video consumption will only continue to spike in the coming years. Additionally, live video removes the pressure of coming up with a script or brilliant presentation on behalf of business owners. In the live realm, raw and unpolished content are totally fair game.

How ADHD Became My Superpower! #FOMOFanz Ep. 33

Live recording of FOMOFanz podcast episode 33: How ADHD Became My Superpower! Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes: http://iTunes.FOMOFanz.LiveUse my favorite podcast app Otto Radio on mobile or browser: http://ottoradio.fomofanz.live

Posted by Brian isocialfanz Fanzo on Tuesday, May 30, 2017

The rise of informal vlogs from the likes of Brian Fanzo, Tai Lopez and Gary Vaynerchuk serve as inspiration for business owners wary of channels like YouTube. The fact that one needs little more than a smartphone to get started with vlogging or live social broadcasts signals just how accessible video is becoming to modern businesses.

Why video marketing is now a ‘must-do’

Sure, most of the marketing sphere is already well aware of the power associated with video content. Consumption and creation are at an all-time high, and according to an April Google-commissioned Nielsen study, YouTube reaches more adults 18+ during prime time than any cable network does.

But if Cisco’s projection that 82 percent of all consumer web traffic will be video-based by 2021 comes to fruition, it’s crystal-clear that the adoption of video has to be a matter of “when” and not “if” for SMBs.

We constantly hear the cry that the barrier of entry to video content is lower than ever for small businesses, which is indeed true. The wealth of video creation apps available continues to widen, while the popularity of live broadcasts, with their lower standards for production value, make it easier for scrappy SMB marketers to feel comfortable experimenting.

By now, we’re all familiar with the top channels available to both produce and distribute video. Through YouTube alone, there are plenty of opportunities for first-timers to test the waters, right? Then why are 39 percent of businesses still sleeping on video, despite visual content being heralded as the be-all, end-all of modern marketing?

For SMBs, video represents a major hurdle

To many business owners, video marketing remains akin to an exclusive club.

Between budget constraints and the amount of time associated with filming and editing any given video, the hesitance of your average SMB is certainly understandable.

After all, the idea of video itself is synonymous with a “production.” From crafting scripts to investing in filming and editing software, the sheer work involved with video marketing is enough to scare away SMBs. Even acquiring stock footage can involve barriers to entry, with cumbersome contracts and clunky interfaces that don’t feel especially welcoming to first-timers.

Despite the opportunities afforded to budget video marketers today, the task itself still seems like an uphill battle.

The future of video for SMBs

The future appears bright for SMBs looking to leverage video, and thought leaders such as Slidely’s More encourage businesses to embrace the challenges associated with the new era of dynamic visual content. As More told Inc.:

In the next three to five years, we will see all the other types of businesses accept the new reality that video is here to stay, and that the barrier to entry is extremely low. The challenge isn’t creating video content, in itself. The challenge is being able to create worthwhile video content on a regular basis.

We’ve reached a make-or-break moment, where social-ready video content marketing has become the expectation for businesses and their customers rather than an exception to the rule. Although the barrier to entry is indeed lower than ever, the fact remains that businesses have a responsibility to create quality video content versus hoping for a silver-bullet solution.


Some opinions expressed in this article may be those of a guest author and not necessarily Marketing Land. Staff authors are listed here.


About The Author

Report: Obama ordered cyber ‘implants’ for Russian network in response to hacking

 

President Obama, angered by Russian hacking during the 2016 elections, authorized a covert cyber operation to deploy « implants » in Russian networks that could be triggered remotely in retaliation to any future cyber aggression by Moscow, The Washington Postreported Friday.

The Post said the operation, still in its early stages, had been signed off on by Obama and authorized U.S. agencies to carry out the program, even into the new administration.

« U.S. intelligence agencies do not need further approval from (President) Trump, and officials said that he would have to issue a countermanding order to stop it, » the Post reported. « The officials said that they have seen no indication that Trump has done so. »

The implants, developed by the NSA, are designed to hit Russian networks deemed “important to the adversary and that would cause them pain and discomfort if they were disrupted,” a former U.S. official told the Post.

They could be activated in the event that Russia attacked a U.S. power grid or interfered in a future U.S. presidential race.

The report is contained in a sweeping investigation into Russian electoral interference, U.S. efforts to uncover its extent, and the political handwringing over how and when to alert the public.

The lengthy report is based on interviews with more than three dozen current and former U.S. officials in senior positions in government, including at the White House, the State, Defense and Homeland Security departments, and U.S. intelligence services the newspaper said.

Other key findings:

— CIA Director John Brennan first alerted the White House in early August that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered an operation to defeat or at least damage Hillary Clinton and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump. Sent by courier from the CIA, it carried “eyes only” instructions that its contents be shown to just four people: Obama and three senior aides.

— As officials debated a response, secrecy and security was extraordinary, akin to the measures employed in the leadup to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

—  On Aug. 15, Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson arranged a conference call with dozens of state officials, hoping to enlist their support for designating state voting system « critical infrastructure » to give priority in offering them federal cybersecurity assistance. He ran into a wall of resistance, including skepticism from Georgia’s secretary of state who said he was unconvinced of Russian interference and viewed the White House proposal an assault on state rights.

— Many White House officials were torn over how to make the information about Russian hacking public out of concern that it might appear to be a deliberate attempt by the White House to influence the election.

— One constant factor in discussions over how to respond was a belief that Hillary Clinton would win the presidency and there would be time to confront the Russians more directly after the election. One former senior Obama administration official, speaking on background, expressed remorse over how the government handled the Russian problem, saying, « I feel we sort of choked. » 

— A Situation Room meeting to brief 12 key members of Congress, including the leadership of both parties, on the Russian hacking issue « devolved into a partisan squabble. » Democrats pressed to make the information public, while Republicans resisted, arguing that to warn the public that the election was under attack would bolster Russia’s aim of undermining confidence in the system.

—The Obama administration warned Russia three times over hacking, including a direct statement by Obama to Russian President Vladimir Putin during a meeting of world leaders in China. Putin responded by demanding proof and accusing the United States of interfering in Russia’s internal affairs.

The White House, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment on the newspaper’s findings, the Post said.

 

 

 

Trump suggests he was trying to keep FBI director honest


President Trump and Vice President Pence walk through the White House as they arrive for a technology event on June 22, 2017. (Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

President Trump laid out his belief that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is biased in the expanding Russia investigation and suggested in an interview broadcast Friday morning that he may eventually need to step down.

Asked by Fox News Channel whether Mueller should « recuse himself from the investigation, » Trump said three times « we’ll have to see, » and argued that Mueller’s long friendship with fired FBI director James B. Comey and hiring of investigators with Democratic ties are « very bothersome » and « ridiculous. »

« He’s very, very good friends with Comey, which is very bothersome, » Trump said. He added: « The people that have been hired are all Hillary Clinton supporters. Some of them worked for Hillary Clinton. I mean the whole thing is ridiculous, if you want to know the truth, from that standpoint. »

Trump has talked privately with advisers and friends about the possibility of firing Mueller, something the president would have to do by ordering his Justice Department to remove him. But in the Fox interview, he seemed to want to give Mueller more time to continue the investigation before jumping to a conclusion.

« Robert Mueller is an honorable man, and hopefully he’ll come up with an honorable solution, » Trump said of the decorated former FBI director, criminal prosecutor and Marine.

With Mueller investigating Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election and its potential collusion with the Trump campaign — as well as possible obstruction of justice by Trump himself — the president maintained his innocence.

« Look, there has been no obstruction, » Trump told Fox. « There has been no collusion. There has been leaking by Comey. But that’s been no collusion, no obstruction — and virtually everybody agrees to that. »

The interview was conducted by Ainsley Earhardt, a favorite of the Trump White House and co-host of « Fox Friends, » the cable network’s reliably favorable morning show that the president often cheers on Twitter. She interviewed Trump and his wife, Melania, at the White House during Thursday night’s congressional picnic.

Trump expressed optimism that the Senate would pass the Republican health-care bill revealed Thursday, saying the four GOP senators who stated their opposition were « friends » of his and would « probably get there. »

« We have four very good people that — it’s not that they’re opposed; they’d like to get certain changes, » Trump said. « And we’ll see if we can take care of that. » He added that health care is « a very complicated situation from the standpoint, you do something that’s good for one group but bad for another. »

Earhardt asked Trump about his announcement earlier Thursday that he had no « tapes » of his private conversations with Comey, coming clean after five-and-a-half weeks of speculating publicly that he may have been recording their talks. Trump suggested that his threat of tapes may have intimidated Comey into being more honest in his recollection of events.

« I didn’t tape, » Trump said. « And I don’t have any tape, and I didn’t tape. But when he found out that I, you know, that there may be tapes out there, whether it’s government tapes or anything else, and who knows, I think his story may have changed. I mean, you’ll have to take a look at that, because then he has to tell what actually took place at the events. »

Trump continued: « My story didn’t change. My story was always a straight story. My story was always the truth. But you’ll have to determine for yourself whether or not his story changed. »

The Health 202: McConnell will be a legislative wizard if health care passes

THE PROGNOSIS

Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) smiles as he leaves the chamber after announcing the release of the Republicans’ health-care bill. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Senate Republicans have finally revealed their plan to revamp the Affordable Care Act. Now, they’re just trying to pass it. There will be lots of twists and turns along the path to an anticipated vote next week — and it’s by no means assured the GOP will get there.

Capitol Hill was awash yesterday with reaction to the health-care bill released by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), which would retain some key components of the ACA while still erasing its taxes and Medicaid expansion. The bill isn’t dead on arrival — no GOP senators have permanently closed the door on voting for it — as long as some concessions are made. But if McConnell succeeds in uniting his deeply skeptical conference around the measure, he could legitimately be labeled a legislative wizard.

McConnell can afford to lose just two Republican senators in his 52-vote caucus because the GOP bill has to meet a threshold of a 50-vote simple majority given the fact it is being subjected to arcane budget rules (and that would leave Vice President Pence to cast a tie-breaking vote for approval).

It is a very tall order. By The Post’s whip count, a dozen Senate Republicans have indicated they oppose or have concerns about McConnell’s « discussion draft. » Moderates were circumspect on Thursday, saying they still have concerns about the bill and need to spend more time reviewing it. On the other end of the spectrum, four conservatives — Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Rand Paul of Kentucky said outright they’d cast their votes against the bill without further rollbacks to Obamacare.

See more about the four Republicans who say they’re not ready to vote for the Senate’s health-care bill:

How things play out over the next week will be pivotal to Republicans’ seven-years-long quest to repeal and replace President Obama’s signature domestic achievement. If enough senators unite to pass McConnell’s bill, Republicans will have come a long way toward achieving their goal. Despite the fact the House would have to sign on (no easy feat, mind you), a stamp of approval from the upper chamber means President Trump is more likely to be able to enact a major priority. If the McConnell falls short, that loss could spell doom for the whole effort and mean that the GOP — with one-party control of Washington — reneges on one of the biggest political promises in recent memory.

Trump threw his weight behind the Senate measure last night:

My colleague Amber Phillips lays out several scenarios that could doom the bill. Anti-Obamacare purists could draw a line. Midwest Republicans just can’t agree to cut Medicaid so deeply. At least three senators with state-specific issues hold out. If any one of these scenarios transpires, the bill is dead. On that note, here’s a list of the senators we’re watching most closely and what they said yesterday about the health-care measure:

THE MODERATES

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) talks about the Senate health-care bill to reporters on Capitol Hill. (Photo by Astrid Riecken For The Washington Post)

–Sen. Susan Collins of Maine: « I see some positive features in this bill that are improvements over the House, and I see some negative features, based on my first analysis, » she told my colleague Dave Weigel. Collins said she likes how the bill would make insurance subsidies available to earners under $12,000. But she is « very concerned » about the long-term cuts to Medicaid spending.

The Boston Globe’s James Pindell tweeted Collins’s statement:

Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

–Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada, who McConnell will be worried about placating as he is one of two GOP incumbents at serious risk of losing their seats in the 2018 midterms: « I have serious concerns about the bill’s impact on the Nevadans who depend on Medicaid, » he said in a statement.

CNN’s Phil Mattingly tweeted the full statement:

Heller said he supports the Senate bill’s gradual, seven-year phase-out of Medicaid expansion, but would have preferred a 10 or 15-year phase-out, according to Jon Ralston, editor of The Nevada Independent. “If they asked me two or 10 years, I’d have said 10. If they asked me two or 15, I probably would have said 15,” Heller said.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) (AP Photo/Pat Sullivan, File)

–Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska: Murkowski reiterated yesterday that she does not support defunding Planned Parenthood and wants that language removed from the bill. But both Murkowski and Collins — the only two Senate Republicans who support abortion rights — stopped short of saying its inclusion would prevent them from ultimately voting for the measure, Bloomberg’s Sahil Kapur noted:

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio). (Photo by Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)

–Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio: Portman was vague and noncommittal either way. He said in a statement that there are « promising changes to reduce premiums » in the Senate bill but « I continue to have real concerns about the Medicaid policies in this bill, especially those that impact drug treatment at a time when Ohio is facing an opioid epidemic. » The Senate bill contains some funding for opioid abuse, but much less than Portman had asked for.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

–Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia: Capito said she « will review the draft legislation released this morning, using several factors to evaluate whether it provides access to affordable health care for West Virginians. » She said she wants to know how it would affect people on Medicaid expansion and those struggling with drug addiction.

The Washington Examiner’s Robert King noted that Capito didn’t explicitly warn she has concerns, as some of the other senators did:

THE CONSERVATIVES

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) (Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)

–Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky: Paul’s leading the foursome of Republicans who are opposing the bill in its current form. He tweeted his joint statement with Sens. Cruz, Lee, Johnson and Toomey. « We are not ready to vote for this bill, but we are open to negotiation and obtaining more information before it is brought to the floor, » the statement says.

 

 

Paul told reporters that the bill « looks like we’re keeping Obamacare, not repealing it, » in a video MSNBC’s Kyle Griffin tweeted:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) (Photo by Astrid Riecken For The Washington Post)

–Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas: Cruz gave perhaps the most detailed reaction. He said he’s pleased that the bill would expand association health plans, tamp down Medicaid growth long-term and prohibit federally subsidized plans from covering abortions. But the draft « does not do nearly enough to lower premiums, » he said.

« That should be the central issue for Republicans – repealing Obamacare and making healthcare more affordable, » Cruz said in a statement. « Because of this, I cannot support it as currently drafted, and I do not believe it has the votes to pass the Senate. »

CNN’s Lauren Fox shared an image of a note Cruz passed around with his « Path to Yes »:

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Ky.)  (EPA/SHAWN THEW)

–Sen. Mike Lee of Utah: Lee echoed Cruz’s criticism that the bill wouldn’t go far enough toward bringing down premiums and repealing Obamacare:

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) makes his way through a crush of reporters at the Capitol.(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

–Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin: « I am not a ‘yes’, » Johnson told reporters, per a tweet from CNN’s Teddy Davis:

Sen.Patrick Toomey (R-Pa.) (Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)

–Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania: Toomey said he’s “likely” to vote for the bill in a call with reporters Thursday afternoon. He said it needs ongoing work, but that he could still support it in its current form. “I don’t have a list of things at this point I must change,” Toomey said. “Everything I want is not going to happen in one bill.

Toomey was a big proponent all along of the deeper cuts to federal Medicaid spending starting in 2025. He’s really happy that part was included, The Hill’s Peter Sullivan noted:

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) speaks with the media. (Photo by Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images)

AHH: The Senate’s third-ranking Republican acknowledged the narrow path to 50 votes, especially now that the Paul/Cruz/Lee/Johnson group has defected for the time being, leaving potentially just 48 votes for the measure.

“Forty-eight — that’s not enough to pass,” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told supporters. But he sought to reassure them. “We’re not voting yet, » he added.

Former President Obama. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

OOF: Former President Obama jumped in quickly yesterday, charging in a lengthy Facebook message that the 142-page draft measure is « not a health care bill. »

“It’s a massive transfer of wealth from middle class and poor families to the richest people in America,” Obama wrote on Facebook. “It hands enormous tax cuts to the rich and to the drug and insurance industries, paid for by cutting health care for everybody else.”

Obama didn’t mention Trump in his post. But he appeared to take a swipe at his successor and his reported characterization of the House bill as “mean. » “Small tweaks over the course of the next couple weeks, under the guise of making these bills easier to stomach, cannot change the fundamental meanness at the core of this legislation, » Obama wrote.

The Post’s David Nakamura noted that Obama had pledged to lay low after leaving the White House. But he made an exception with the law nicknamed after him:

“It is on health care that Obama has perhaps the most to lose and, with his lengthy Facebook statement, has signaled his intention to have the most political influence. Though he opened his message with an attempt to elevate the debate — emphasizing the need to listen to those with opposing points of view — he quickly framed Republican motivations as purely partisan,” Dave writes.

Part of former President Obama’s post on Facebook about the Senate health-care bill. (Screenshot) Humana CEO Bruce Broussard. (REUTERS/Carlo Allegri)

OUCH: Humana says it will not return to the individual insurance market no matter what happens to Obamacare, Reuters reports. It’s among the major insurers that have pulled back from specific states or fled the marketplace altogether citing heavy losses and uncertainty. The company had announced back in February that it would leave the marketplaces entirely, and its CEO said yesterday that decision isn’t contingent on Republican action to revamp the Affordable Care Act.

“This is just not a business that we will be good at,” Humana CEO Bruce Broussard said in an interview. “No matter what they do in Washington, we are not going to go back in. And we’ve had a lot of people ask us from Washington D.C. if we would go back in and we’ve said no, it’s not there.”

Other insurers also declared exits this week, as the federal rate filing deadline came and went. Anthem announced Wednesday it was leaving the Wisconsin and Indiana marketplaces, after earlier this month saying it would pull out of Ohio. The withdrawals have put some counties in serious jeopardy of having no marketplace insurer next year. Here is a map from the Kaiser Family Foundation showing counties where people are at risk for having no options for insurance in 2018. 

George Mathew, CEO of Kespry, shows a drone to President Donald Trump. (Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

–Trump told Fox News that he thinks Senate Republicans will manage to pass their measure. “I think that they’ll probably get there,” Trump said in the interview, previewed by CBS News. Trump added that the four holdout senators (Paul/Cruz/Lee/Johnson) are “friends of mine. » “But we’ll have to wait and see, » he said.

And last night, the president hopefully retweeted Fox Nation saying Cruz « wants to get to ‘yes.' »

The night before the bill was released, at a campaign-style rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Trump told his supports he wanted to “add some money” to the health-care bill so it can have more “heart.”

And on Thursday, as Senate Republicans were meeting for the bill’s rollout, Trump said the bill will be « something with heart » but will need further changes. “Obamacare is dead, and we’re putting a plan out today that is going to be negotiated,” he said. “We’d love to have some Democrats’ support, but they’re obstructionist.”

See more:

Pence expressed confidence that the bill would land on Trump’s desk “before summer is out.”

“Today, my fellow Americans here can be assured before the summer is out — working with the Congress — President Donald Trump will keep his promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act,” Pence said at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “We look forward to working with the Senate majority to move this legislation forward.”

–Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, a former Republican congressman himself, gave the Senate measure a resounding endorsement:

Protesters chant after the Republican health care bill passed in the House. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

–Protests broke out around Washington on Thursday over the Senate health-care bill, as patient advocates flooded Capitol Hill to register their opposition to its deep Medicaid spending cuts. Dozens of people were arrested after staging a « die-in » outside McConnell’s office, the Post’s Perry Stein reports.

« The protest, organized by the disability advocacy organization ADAPT, was intended to pressure McConnell and other Republicans not to cut Medicaid funding, » Perry writes. « The protesters staged a “die-in” in front of the office, with many of the protesters in wheelchairs removing themselves from the chairs then lying on the floor … U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman Eva Malecki said officers warned the demonstrators to ‘cease their unlawful activities’ or risk being arrested. Those who did not comply were arrested and charged with crowding and obstructing. »

Here’s a video of protesters being led away after blocking McConnell’s office:

Some protesters followed senators to Reagan National Airport as they departed on flights back to their home states. Igor Volsky, with the liberal Center for American Progress, captured some of it on video:

–Jonathan Gruber, the health economist famously known as an « architect » of Obamacare and a big supporter of the law, had an interesting twist on the bill. Gruber noted to CNN that the GOP measure actually retains some big parts of the ACA (like its insurance subsidies). From the Daily Beast’s Lachlan Markay:

–Some Democrats posted photos of themselves reading the draft bill, underscoring how they weren’t invited to weigh in through the process as it was being written:

Some Republicans did, too:

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.):

A few more interesting reads about the Senate health-care measure:

A demonstrator holds up a sign that reads « No Cuts To Medicare » during a protest outside the Republican Party’s annual policy retreat in January. Photographer: Charles Mostoller/Bloomberg

Let’s take a tour through what the public thinks about the provisions in the Senate bill — and the law it would replace. 

–Like the House bill, the Senate version would allow insurers to charge older people more relative to younger people, by a ratio of 5-to-1 instead of the current 3-to-1. This idea is widely unpopular, opposed by 81 percent of respondents in a U-Md./Brookings national study released this week. Notably, 66 percent of Republicans and 80 percent of people in heavily Republican congressional districts opposed the idea.

–Rolling back Medicaid expansion, as the Senate bill would do, is unpopular in general. A May Kaiser Family Foundation poll found a greater percentage saying cuts to the ACA’s Medicaid expansion made them less likely to support the House bill than more likely (43 percent less likely, 23 percent more likely), while about one-third said it made no difference (34 percent). 

–The Senate bill would repeal the ACA’s individual mandate to buy coverage and employer mandate to offer it. The individual mandate is one of the ACA’s least popular provisions – 63 percent had an unfavorable view of it in a November Kaiser poll. But the employer mandate is better-liked. A November Kaiser Family Foundation poll found 60 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the requirement for employers with 50 or more employees to pay a fine if they don’t offer health insurance. 

–Reducing taxes on higher-income households tends to be unpopular, and a May Kaiser poll found similar results regarding ACA taxes (which the Senate bill would repeal). Some 49 percent of Americans said rolling back the law’s taxes on higher-income people would make them less likely to support a health-care bill, while 18 percent said it would make them more likely to back it. Among Republicans, 30 percent said eliminating tax increases for higher-income people made them more likely to support the bill.

–The House bill provides waivers allowing insurers to charge some people with preexisting conditions higher premiums, but the Senate bill retains the protections for these patients. Such waivers were widely unpopular in surveys that tested them, suggesting their removal could boost support for the law. In the May Kaiser poll 65 percent said they’d be less likely to support a bill that allowed states to decide if health insurance companies can charge sick people more than healthy people if they lack continuous coverage, compared with 12 percent who said it made them more likely to back it. 

–And as Republicans unveiled their highly anticipated draft yesterday, the Wall Street Journal and NBC released a poll showing 41 percent of people approve of the Affordable Care Act compared to 38 percent who do not. Nearly half of respondents — 48 percent — said the House health-care bill, which the Senate draft mimics in many ways, was a bad idea.

–Health insurers had little to say about the Senate bill yesterday. « We continue to analyze the bill, consistent with our previous positions, » Kristine Grow, spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, told The Health 202.

But provider groups had mixed or largely negative reviews. The American Medical Association said it is still reviewing the bill but has « grave concerns » with its cuts to Medicaid spending. The American Academy of Pediatrics said it « fails to meet children’s needs. » The American Academy Of Family Physicians said reflects many of the same « flawed concepts » as in the House bill and in many ways, poses « a graver threat to millions of Americans, particularly children, people with disabilities and older Americans. » The American Hospital Association said the Senate should « go back to the drawing board. »

–Democrats have been slamming Republicans for crafting their health-care bill behind closed doors. But were they a model of transparency while writing the Affordable Care Act? Not exactly, Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler reports.

To highlight the secrecy of the GOP health-care deliberations, many Senate Democrats have pointed out that the debate over the ACA marked the second-longest consecutive session in Senate history. Here’s what Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer said on Monday:

Schumer: “Twenty-five days of consecutive session on a bill that was partisan in the sense that Republicans were angry with it, but we still had the courage of our convictions to have a debate on the floor.”

Was Schumer right? Technically, yes. But this statistic obscures a reality: The key work on creating the Senate version of the ACA was done in secret, Glenn writes. (The Health 202 has written about this before as well)

The reality: « The biggest difference between the Democratic effort to reshape health care in 2009-2010 and the Republican effort to undermine that achievement is that the Democrats made full use of the committee process, » Glenn writes. « Republicans have skipped the days of hearings and lengthy markups that were a feature of the crafting of Obamacare. »

But while Senate Democrats wrote different health bills in two committees, those bills were merged by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) secretly in his office — much like McConnell’s approach now. The real work after that went on behind closed doors, in Reid’s office, where he negotiated significant changes with a group of moderate Democrats. During those private talks, Reid agreed to remove a public option in the bill, as well as drop a plan to allow people between the ages of 55 and 65 to buy into Medicare, among other changes.

The takeaway: « Republicans have skipped the lengthy, open process of hearings and markups of legislation that characterized the Democrats’ march to passage of the ACA, » Glenn writes. « Instead, they moved directly to floor votes. Moreover, Democrats at first tried to enlist some Republican support, while Republicans have not reached out to Democrats. »

« But recalling the second-longest Senate session obscures the fact that the floor debate was mostly for show, an exercise designed to allow the closed-door negotiations that shaped the final bill to take place, » he continues. « Once the deal was struck, Reid pushed the final draft forward with as much speed as possible. That’s what McConnell is doing now, having skipped the preliminaries. »

(AFP PHOTO / KAREN BLEIERKAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)

Today

  • The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health will hold a hearing on safety net health programs. 

Coming Up

  • The American Enterprise Institute is holding a discussion on the government’s role in medical innovation and funding on June 29.

Four ways the Senate health-care bill could fall apart: 

Trump says the GOP health-care bill will have ‘heart’:

Trump’s claim about the ‘catastrophe’ of Obamacare premiums increasing 204 percent in Alaska:

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wisc.) comments on health care: 

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) says the health-care bill will « rip health care away from millions of Americans »:

Schumer says the Senate health-care bill « is a step to eradicating » Medicaid:

Seth Meyers says Senate Republicans are trying to rush their “Cruel Trumpcare Bill”:

Jimmy Kimmel talks to kids about health care: