Archives par mot-clé : video

Shoot melons, kill bugs: How businesses make creative videos

Posted: Sunday, March 05, 2017 12:15 AMBy JOYCE M. ROSENBERGAssociated Press

Print Page

  • Email to a Friend


    captcha 9d99dd86f3de431db4a9535da4545b7f

  • Recommended ( 0 )
  • Read Comments (0)
  • Associated PressTom Nardone, owner of PriveCo, which sells bulletproof vests, stands in his warehouse in Troy, Mich., with a mannequin wearing a test vest. In more than a hundred videos he's posted on YouTube, Nardone takes aim at racks of ribs, laptop computers and tires to illustrate what a bulletproof vest can do.

    Associated Press

    Tom Nardone, owner of PriveCo, which sells bulletproof vests, stands in his warehouse in Troy, Mich., with a mannequin wearing a test vest. In more than a hundred videos he’s posted on YouTube, Nardone takes aim at racks of ribs, laptop computers and tires to illustrate what a bulletproof vest can do.

    NEW YORK — Melons going splat in slow motion. Drawn-as-you-go animation about machines. A behind-the-scenes look at winery operations. Not the usual viral videos, but small business owners have realized offering something to watch and having a sense of humor about themselves can help grab customers’ attention.

    In more than a hundred videos he’s posted on YouTube, Tom Nardone takes aim at racks of ribs, laptop computers and tires to illustrate what a bulletproof vest can do. A Valentine’s Day-timed video sacrificed several boxes of candy. The videos can be graphic, with items exploding at slow speed and Nardone splattered with barbecue sauce or peanut butter.

    Nardone, owner of Troy, Michigan-based PriveCo, began making the videos in 2013, less than a year after he began selling the vests. While he advertised in magazines and went to gun shows, he realized that to reach a wider audience he needed to be online. And he didn’t want a demonstration of just the vests.

    « It does its job, but it’s nothing to look at, » Nardone says. « We said, uh oh, we’ve got to come up with something good. »

    PriveCo’s videos have collected a following; the melon video has nearly a million views since it was posted more than 2à ½ years ago. Nardone gets recognized at gun shows, and has gotten compliments from people who like to watch him shoot items from gravel to boxed wine.

    It’s natural for some small businesses like real estate brokers to use videos in marketing campaigns for houses and other properties; for others, it can take some brainstorming and perhaps even an offbeat sense of humor to come up with something compelling. But more businesses are getting on board — Facebook counted more than 3 million small business videos posted in September, up 50 percent from 2 million six months earlier, according to the company’s most recent published figures.

    Arlington Machinery, which sells, repairs and appraises used plastic-making machines, began posting videos on YouTube nine years ago with several objectives. One was to raise the company’s rank in internet search results, and another was to display machines for prospective buyers. Or, if equipment was sent to the company for repair, videos could show the owners that the machines were ready to be sent back.

    But more recently, Arlington realized videos were also a way to market itself to different kinds of customers. The Elk Grove, Illinois-based company decided to have a little fun, and commissioned the whimsical animated video that explains the company’s services.

    « Used machinery is not all that exciting to most people, » says David Pietig, a general manager at the company. « What we’re trying to do is make people interested in what we do. »

    Thinking about what customers want to see is the best way to get inspired, marketing experts say.

    « Good ideas can come from everywhere. If there is an old-school mentality at a company, they should get a pool of 21-year-olds that are more digitally and socially media savvy, » suggests Brian Metcalf, CEO of GreenRoom, a digital marketing company based in Miami.

    Making videos can cost almost nothing or run into the tens of thousands of dollars. Arlington Machinery says its animation cost only about $100, but Nardone paid more than $15,000 to produce a series of videos last summer. At Mountain View Vineyard, a Pennsylvania winery that began making videos in the past year, a smartphone and a still camera have kept the costs minimal.

    When marketing director Laurie Monteforte started working at Mountain View a year ago, she made it a priority to create a campaign that included videos. But the standard way of selling wine — showing smiling people gathered around a food-laden table and lifting their glasses in a toast — won’t work in a video, she says.

    « Today’s audience doesn’t want commercials, where we try to sell you something, » Monteforte says.

    Mountain View’s videos teach viewers how to make something with wine, such as red wine hot chocolate, or show some aspect of the winery’s operations. Last summer, owner Linda Rice demonstrated how she hand-picks Japanese beetles off of plants and drops them into soapy water, killing them without chemical pesticides.

    Mountain View says its revenue is up about 30 percent in the past year, and credits about three-quarters of that gain to video and social media.

    « There are so many options where people can go for wine and spirits, » Rice says. « Video and social media set us apart because people get to know us. »

    captcha 9d99dd86f3de431db4a9535da4545b7f

    Build Your Content Marketing Stack

    A content marketing stack is a collection of software tools and technologies gathered for the express purpose of helping a business use articles, graphics, podcasts, videos, or similar to attract and keep customers.

    At its core, content marketing relies on the principle of reciprocity and on building trust. If a business — such as an online store — provides helpful, entertaining, or informative content that has value, folks are likely to feel grateful for the content and recognize the business as an expert in the field.

    When it does come time to make a purchase, those folks may be more likely to buy from businesses they respect and trust.

    Content marketing can also be comparatively easy to produce. Even the smallest of businesses equipped with Google Docs, a blog, and a Facebook page, can create, publish, and distribute content that will attract, engage, and retain customers.

    In fact, Google Docs, a blog, and Facebook taken together represent a basic or even fundamental content marketing technology stack, since they fall into the most elementary categories of necessary software solutions.

    To these tools, there are many other applications that may make content marketing more effective. What follows are several categories of tools to consider for your content marketing technology stack.

    Content Research

    Your company’s business goals and objectives should guide your content marketing research to an extent. But it is unlikely that it will point you to the specific topics you’ll need to cover.

    As an example, consider a brick-and-click retailer that sells large animal grooming supplies, accessories, and supplements — think horse shampoo to make a colt’s coat shiny or vitamins for a pet pig.

    This retailer has a goal of increasing large animal supplement sales by five percent this year. It hopes to use content marketing to reach this aim. This sort of goal might help a content marketer know whom to produce content for and give some hint about what kind of content to produce, but ultimately more research may be required.

    In this category of software solutions, look for tools that will help:

    • Identify customer needs (perhaps personas),
    • Monitor social media and blogs,
    • Generate concepts (keywords),
    • Establish content schedules and calendars,
    • Identify possible distribution channels,
    • Reuse existing content or data.

    Solutions in this category might include Google AdWords Keyword Planner, Google Drive research, Post Planner, gShift, BuzzSumo, and Rival IQ, to name some.

    Post Planner is an example of a software solution you might use for content research. There are many software solutions you could pick. At this layer, the aim is to find tools that help you decide what to write about or make a video about.

    Post Planner is an example of a software solution you might use for content research. There are many software solutions you could pick. At this layer, the aim is to find tools that help you decide what to write about or make a video about.

    Content Creation

    Whether you’re composing a blog post, recording a podcast, or shooting video, you’re going to need software.

    For written content, you might use a word processor like Google Docs or a more specialized solution like the Hemingway Editor. A tool like Grammarly can help with spelling and punctuation. There are, without exaggeration, hundreds of other apps you might choose.

    For audio content, you will need a microphone, digital audio recorder, and audio editing software like Adobe Audition, Audacity, or similar. You may also want a tool like Skype, Ringr, or Google Voice to record conversations or interviews. Here again, there are many options.

    Adobe Audition is audio editing software. If you create podcasts or videos, it or a solution like it may be part of your content marketing technology stack.

    Adobe Audition is audio editing software. If you create podcasts or videos, it or a solution like it may be part of your content marketing technology stack.

    For video editing, Adobe Premiere is, perhaps, the best-known tool, but there are many others to consider.

    The secret is to find content creation tools you feel comfortable with. If you are not going to create all of your content yourself, you might use a service for finding freelancers, such as Contently, Guru, or Upwork.

    Publication and Distribution

    The content publication and distribution layer of your content marketing stack includes software solutions that range from having your own place to publish or host content to how you will broadcast content around the web.

    For example, you may want a blog or even your own online journal running on a popular content management system, like WordPress, Ghost, or similar. You could host podcasts on SoundCloud and videos might live on YouTube, Vimeo, Brightcove, or others.

    Your business’s social media accounts will also play a role in distributing content, since you can post links or embed rich media on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and more.

    There are even software tools to help you broadcast content. Again, Contently is an example, as is Uberflip, or you might also use a tool like Buffer, dlvr.it, or Hootsuite, to name a few of many applications, that can help you distribute content.

    Think about how you will host content and how your audience of potential customers will discover it.

    Content Optimization

    To further help folks find your content, you can optimize it for discovery and consumption.

    At this point in your content marketing technology stack, you could be employing web technologies as frequently as you’re using a software solution.

    For example, you might ensure that your content pages use structured data, like JSON-LD. You could use Accelerated Mobile Pages to attract more mobile readers. Or you might include email markup in your promotional messages. Don’t forget about RSS feeds either since those could be used to feed Feedly or iTunes.

    In addition to these technologies, you could employ a tool like Screamingfrog, PowerMapper, or Moz, to help with search engine optimization and web accessibility. The goal, of course, is to help potential customers find the content you make and have a good experience reading or watching it.

    Content Promotion

    One of content marketing’s many benefits is that it does not necessarily require paid media placement. But this doesn’t mean that you cannot promote content. If it makes sense for your business, you might even buy ads that link to articles, videos, ebooks, or similar.

    You could do this with any pay-per-click platform — Google AdWords would work just fine. Or you could find specialized tools. One Spot can help create ads for your content. Zemanta, Outbrain, and Taboola can all help with content promotion, including native ads and placement. Quuu Promote will suggest your content to folks looking for things to share on the web.

    Lots of companies will want to sell you advertising and placement. Use these companies wisely to help promote your content.

    Quuu Promote will help place your content on social media, encouraging folks who are already looking for things to share to post your content.

    Quuu Promote will help place your content on social media, encouraging folks who are already looking for things to share to post your content.

    Measurement and Analysis

    Content marketing is iterative. Learn the sorts of content and distribution channels that are effective for your business and your goals. To do this, you’ll need some tools for measuring and analyzing content marketing campaigns.

    This layer of your content marketing technology stack could include general analytics software like Google Analytics or Heap.

    You might also try tools to track return on investment, like TrackMaven. Again, you have many options. Find an analysis tool that helps your business make good decisions about content creation and promotion.

    Build Your Content Marketing Stack

    Content marketing requires a way to create content and a way to publish that content. So your content marketing technology stack can be thin and still be functional.

    As your content marketing campaigns increase in complexity, you can add to your technology stack. Any solution you include should make your content more effective.

    Russia is the slow burn of the Trump administration, and it’s not going away

    Russia has become the slow burn of President Trump’s administration. It is the issue that he and his team cannot get beyond. They cannot get beyond it because they are skittish about accepting what is already known. They cannot get beyond it because they have not been as forthcoming as they could be about what they did. They cannot get beyond it because they don’t know what they don’t know.

    It’s important to remember that much isn’t yet known about the whole controversy, particularly the contacts between Trump campaign officials or advisers and the Russians. That there were contacts is not in dispute. Some appear routine, but the circumstances and the content of all those contacts is far from fully known. It’s possible they will add up to little or nothing. It’s also possible they will add up to something significant.

    The controversy involving Attorney General Jeff Sessions provides the latest example of why the issue won’t go away soon. Sessions failed to tell the truth during his confirmation hearings about meeting with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and allegedly no one in the White House knew of those meetings until The Washington Post broke the story last Wednesday.

    During his confirmation hearing, Sessions was asked one question but answered another, and in so doing, did not tell the truth. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) asked Sessions, “If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?”

    This was a prospective question, with Franken asking the likely next attorney general how he would handle such allegations if intelligence officials produced such evidence. Sessions chose to answer it this way: “I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.”

    Sessions was neither responsive to Franken’s question nor was he forthcoming about having met with Kislyak, first in passing at the Republican National Convention last July and then for a fuller conversation in September in his Senate office. It was a double error. When the real story came out, he announced that he would recuse himself from any investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election.

    Something similar happened Thursday night. Sessions was asked by Tucker Carlson of Fox News, “Did the [Trump] campaign believe that the Russian government, the Putin government, favored Trump over [Hillary] Clinton?” Sessions replied, “I have never been told that.” Carlson then asked, “Do you think they did?” Sessions responded: “I don’t have any idea, Tucker. You’d have to ask them.”

    A Justice Department spokeswoman said that Sessions was answering to the literal question, by saying that no one in the Trump campaign had ever told him anything like that and that he didn’t know whether anyone in the campaign thought the Russians were favoring Trump over Clinton. But when he said, “You’d have to ask them,” was the “them” in reference to Trump campaign officials, of which he was one, or the Russians?

    Whichever, that answer was not adequate, given the supercharged nature of the situation and the controversy he had created by not having volunteered that he had met with Kislyak. Sessions easily could have said that, while no one in the campaign had told him that they thought the Russians were trying to help Trump, the intelligence community in fact had reached that conclusion and that he accepted those findings.

    After all, the FBI, which Sessions now oversees, was one of three main signatories, along with the CIA and the National Security Agency, on that January intelligence document. Sessions also could have added that he did not think that Russian interference changed the outcome of the election and that Trump was duly elected president.

    This is a pattern that has compounded the administration’s problem. Trump apparently sees the entire issue as an attempt to delegitimize his presidency. The president also has continued to equivocate on the question of whether he truly believes the intelligence community’s findings. As a result, he and others have tried to wish away that something significant happened.

    With Sessions under fire and more reports about contacts between Trump officials and Russians, the president on Thursday labeled calls for further investigation of the Russia issue a “witch hunt.” On Saturday, in classic fashion, the president sought to create a new controversy. In a tweet, he accused the Obama administration of a plot to wiretap Trump Tower. He cited no evidence to back up the accusation.

    There are several elements to the Russia investigation. The overarching issue is the attempt by a foreign government to disrupt an American election and thereby undermine confidence in the world’s leading democratic government. Just as important is answering the question of whether there was any collusion or cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russians in attempting to undermine Clinton’s campaign.

    Ambassadors routinely meet with elected U.S. officials. They are especially keen to learn as much as they can about someone who could become president and about the people around the candidate. Sessions’s meeting with Kislyak last September easily falls into that category. Similarly, the more recent meetings between Kislyak and retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and White House senior adviser Jared Kushner could be seen in that way as well, or as an effort during the transition to develop necessary contacts.

    But Flynn was never forthcoming about his conversations until revelations by The Post, and he was forced to resign after misleading Vice President Pence.

    Just as Sessions was unwilling to volunteer his contacts with the Russian ambassador during his confirmation hearings, the administration has rarely volunteered who met with whom and what was discussed. That’s fed suspicions that have intensified calls for more investigation.

    The president could begin by ordering an internal investigation, led by someone not now in the administration, of all those contacts. This could force every member of his team to come clean. The administration’s credibility on all this, however, has been weakened because, as one Republican put it, “They keep fanning those flames by denying it so vociferously.” That means any such public report would be viewed with some skepticism, but at a minimum it would provide an inventory that doesn’t exist and the appearance of cooperation.

    One vulnerability for the president is his own role in stirring up questions. His posture during the campaign of embracing policies that were in Russia’s interests and his positive comments about Russian President Vladimir Putin put him at odds with Republican orthodoxy and raised questions about his motivations and possible business links with Russia. He has denied having any.

    Another vulnerability comes from the nature of the Trump campaign, which for much of the election cycle was loosely structured. A variety of people claimed access or influence. The full extent to which Trump advisers, associates or even campaign hangers-on were in contact with Russians remains a mystery. All are legitimate questions aimed at trying to understand whether there was cooperation or collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign writ large.

    As much as Trump would like to wish all this away, he can’t. The reality is that the investigations are at an early stage. Congress hasn’t even begun to call witnesses. The prospect of a special prosecutor looms. This, with health care and tax policy and other initiatives, is now part of Trump’s first-year agenda. The president needs a new strategy, one that treats the Russia issue as the serious problem that it is.

    Trump accuses Obama of ‘Nixon/Watergate’ wiretap — but offers no evidence

    President Trump on Saturday angrily accused former president Barack Obama of orchestrating a “Nixon/Watergate” plot to tap the phones at his Trump Tower headquarters in the run-up to last fall’s election, providing no evidence to support his explosive claim and drawing a flat denial from Obama’s office.

    Leveling the extraordinary allegation about his predecessor in a series of four early morning tweets, Trump said Obama had been “wire tapping” his New York offices and suggested that the former president had meddled with the “very sacred election process.” Obama’s supposed actions, Trump said, amounted to McCarthyism.

    “Bad (or sick) guy!” the 45th president tweeted about the 44th, insisting that the surveillance efforts resulted in “nothing found.”

    Senior U.S. officials with knowledge of a wide-ranging federal investigation into Russian interference in the election, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified information, said Saturday that there had been no wiretap of Trump.

    Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for Obama, said in a statement: “A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.”

    President Trump speaks to Navy and shipyard personnel aboard nuclear aircraft carrier U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford in Newport News, Va., on Thursday, March 2. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

    Officials at the FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment.

    According to senior administration officials, White House Counsel Donald McGahn and his office are inquiring about possible surveillance of then-candidate Trump while being sensitive to legal and national security considerations.

    White House press secretary Sean Spicer said McGahn “is reviewing what options, if any, are available to us.”

    It could not be immediately determined whether there had been wiretaps of anyone in Trump’s orbit who might be a subject of the Russia probe. Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) told MSNBC on Friday that he believes “transcripts” exist that would show whether Russian officials colluded with Trump’s campaign.

    Wiretaps in a foreign intelligence probe cannot legally be directed at a U.S. facility without probable cause — reviewed by a federal judge — that the phone lines or Internet addresses at the facility were being used by agents of a foreign power or by someone spying for or acting on behalf of a foreign government.

    Ben Rhodes, a longtime national security adviser to Obama, tweeted at Trump: “No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you.”

    Neither Trump nor his aides offered any citation to back up Trump’s accusation about Obama. Trump may have been prompted by a report on the conservative website Breitbart and commentary from talk radio host Mark Levin suggesting that the Obama administration used “police state” tactics to monitor the Trump team. The Breitbart report circulated among Trump’s senior aides Friday and early Saturday, and Trump may have simply been reacting to the piece when he took to his preferred megaphone, Twitter, to trumpet his claim.

    White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, center, walks offstage with White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, right, at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Feb. 23, 2017. (Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post)

    Trump’s tweets punctuated a general feeling shared by the president, his advisers and allies that Obama and the “Deep State” of critics within the intelligence community — who they think are fueling stories on Trump and Russia — have been conspiring to derail his presidency. At the heart of each of the president’s tweets is Trump’s apparent belief that Obama himself — as opposed to members of his administration — had been personally overseeing surveillance of Trump Tower.

    The conservative media landscape — including Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News and Infowars, the conspiracy website run by Alex Jones, outlets on which Trump has appeared — has in recent days given birth to tales of Obama and his closest confidants trying to spur Trump’s impeachment or force his resignation.

    But separately, the president is furious that a slow churn of revelations about communications between Attorney General Jeff Sessions, ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn and other Trump associates and Russian officials has overshadowed the early weeks of his administration. And he has grown fixated on identifying leakers.

    “He’s angry, and he thinks that the leaks — even forgetting the rhetoric on politics — are a significant problem that hurts the security of the country,” said Thomas J. Barrack Jr., a close friend who chaired Trump’s inauguration. “He feels if he can’t rely on his team, if he were negotiating with North Korea on something sensitive and death by a thousand leaks continued, he views that as really being disruptive to the security of America.”

    Trump has directed his aides to investigate employees across the federal government, with a particular focus on holdovers from the Obama administration and career intelligence officers, who Trump believes are trying to sabotage him.

    White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon has been in close touch with the president about what he has called the Deep State. Bannon’s remarks in a recent speech about the “deconstruction of the administrative state” were designed in part to raise alarm among activists on the right about entrenched bureaucrats in the intelligence and defense agencies, according to White House officials.

    Roger Stone, a longtime political adviser to Trump who does not work in the administration but still talks with the president, said he is urging Trump to fire and prosecute anyone who leaks damaging information.

    “What the president doesn’t understand is he has more power than he knows,” Stone said. “He needs to clean house. Just clean house! Hand the pink slips to everybody. . . . Lock them out of their offices and tell the FBI to start going through their emails and phone messages.”

    Trump was incensed over Sessions’s decision to recuse himself from the Russia probe after The Washington Post reported that Sessions had met twice with the Russian ambassador but then testified falsely at his Senate confirmation hearing that he “did not have communications with the Russians.”

    In the Oval Office on Friday morning, Trump fumed at his senior staff about the Sessions situation and told them that he disagreed with the attorney general’s move, according to senior White House officials who were not authorized to speak publicly.

    Trump told aides that he thought the White House and Justice Department should have done more to counter the argument that Sessions needed to step away. Trump said he wanted to see his staff fight back against what he saw as a widespread effort to destabilize his presidency, the officials said.

    Trump then departed for Palm Beach, Fla. — in what one associate described as “a [expletive] bad mood” — to spend the weekend at his private Mar-a-Lago Club, where he fired off Saturday morning’s tweets alleging wiretaps.

    Trump amended his public schedule Saturday to add an early evening meeting with Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly, as well as dinner with both men and other advisers, including Bannon.

    If the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved a wiretapping order on one of Trump’s associates, that would mean the federal judge involved had decided there was probable cause that the person was colluding with a foreign government.

    Some current and former intelligence officials cast doubt on Trump’s wiretapping assertion.

    “It’s extremely unlikely that there would have been any sort of criminal or intelligence surveillance of Trump,” said Jennifer Daskal, a former senior Justice Department national security official. “There’s no credible evidence yet to suggest that that happened. It would be an extraordinary measure for the FBI to ask for and the court to grant a surveillance order on a presidential candidate of the opposing party in an election year.”

    Most Republican leaders were quiet on the issue Saturday, but Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) vowed at a town hall meeting with constituents to “get to the bottom of this.” He said it would be “the biggest scandal since Watergate” if Obama illegally spied on Trump or if a judge approved a warrant to monitor Trump’s campaign for possible communications with Russia.

    “I’m very worried that our president is suggesting that the former president has done something illegally,” Graham said. At the same time, because of what it would signal, “I would be very worried if in fact the Obama administration was able to obtain a warrant lawfully about Trump campaign activity with foreign governments.”

    Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) called for Trump to provide the public more information about his charges. “We are in the midst of a civilization-warping crisis of public trust, and the President’s allegations today demand the thorough and dispassionate attention of serious patriots,” Sasse said in a statement.

    Democrats, meanwhile, blasted Trump. Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said the president leveled a “spectacularly reckless allegation” against Obama without evidence.

    Referencing Trump’s description of Obama as a “bad (or sick) guy,” Schiff said in a statement, “If there is something bad or sick going on, it is the willingness of the nation’s chief executive to make the most outlandish and destructive claims without providing a scintilla of evidence to support them.”

    Daskal, who now teaches law at American University, agreed. “It is extremely dangerous for the president to be suggesting that he was being surveilled for political purposes, when there is absolutely no evidence of that fact,” she said.

    Jenna Portnoy in Palm Beach, Fla., and David Weigel and Matt Zapotosky in Washington contributed to this report.

    Trump supporters rally across country; clashes, arrests in some locations

    From Colorado’s state Capitol to Trump Tower in New York and the Washington Monument, groups of hundreds of people rallied for President Donald Trump on Saturday, waving « Deplorables for Trump » signs and even carrying a life-size cutout of the president.

    Chelsea Thomas, an accountant from Thornton, Colorado, brought her family to the March 4 Trump rally in Denver — and the life-size cardboard cutout of Trump. She said the family has taken it with them on camping trips, boat rides and a country music festival.

    « It’s nice to be surrounded by people who share your morals and opinions, » said Thomas, as her son walked back and forth across the grass with a Trump flag.

    Many in the crowd held American flags or wore red, white and blue and held signs with messages like « Veterans before Refugees. »

    Was Mike Pence’s private email account actually hacked?


    Vice President Pence talks to business leaders before President Trump met with them in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Jan. 23, 2017. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post)

    There were two ironies to the revelation that Vice President Pence had a private AOL email account that he used as recently as last year while serving as governor of Indiana. The first, and most obvious, is that the campaign that elevated Pence to his current position spent an awful lot of time criticizing Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email system while she was at the State Department. The second is that Pence’s situation was apparently actually worse: While hackers tried to access Clinton’s server, they were unsuccessful. Pence’s account, the Indianapolis Star reported, “was hacked.”

    Apparently. While the two scenarios are dissimilar in a lot of important ways, there’s one way in which they might be the same: It’s not entirely clear that Pence’s email was actually hacked.

    If Pence’s account was hacked, that’s a serious problem. While he wasn’t trading in international diplomacy (as Clinton was), he was still conducting official business from the account. (The Star published some of the official correspondence it received from a public records request.) A hack of any email is a problem. A hack of a government official’s is worse.

    So here’s what we know. We know that, last summer, people who knew Pence were sent an email describing a trip to the Philippines that had gone bad, and asking for money to be sent to the stranded Pences so that they could get home. The Star got a copy of that email, too, which it published last June, before Pence was tapped to run with Trump. It’s signed “Mike Karen,” Karen being Pence’s wife.

    (Maureen Groppe, USA TODAY)

    We also know that immediately after Pence discovered that the emails had been sent, he closed that email account. That point was reinforced to me by Marc Lotter, press secretary to Pence, when we spoke by phone on Friday. But when I asked if knew with certainty that Pence’s account had actually been hacked, he said he didn’t.

    The thing about email is that it’s extremely easy to fake. Email generally enjoys all of the security of a postcard sent through the mail; any server it stops at can see an unencrypted message that’s being sent. But the return address can also be faked, just like on an envelope. It’s trivial to set up a system to send out an email that appears to come from any address in the world. To see where it really came from, you need to check the equivalent of the cancellation, the hidden data that describes how the email was routed to you.

    Spammers figured this out early. Instead of getting an email from buyV1agra@hotmail.com, you could get one that looked like it was coming from sally@aol.com. Eventually, spammers figured out an even-better improvement. By accessing people’s email address books, they could send messages to one person on the list and make it look like it came from someone else on that list. This tactic has the dual advantages of using a real email address as the origin and, on many occasions, connecting two people who actually know each other in real life. (How many people in your address book know the other people who are in it?)

    This is called spoofing, and it doesn’t require access to Pence’s account at all. (AOL has a page helping users understand and detect spoofed emails.) In the opinion of Michael Borohovski, CTO of California-based Tinfoil Security, it’s as likely that the people who received that email from the Pences about the Philippines were victims of a spoofed message as it is that someone broke into Pence’s account to send it out.

    “If his account was compromised,” Borohovski said, “the email could have been much more interestingly targeted.” A scam-tracking website reported emails circulating with the exact language used in the Pence email a few months prior to its being sent, with the exception that the Pence email was in the plural (“we” vs. “I”). Had someone accessed Pence’s account specifically, they could have used the information in the account to target specific people with specific messages. The use of a cookie-cutter message about the Philippines suggests that the senders may not have had access to more information.

    How did the senders know the name of Pence’s wife? Remember: One possible source of the email was someone’s address book. If Pence’s email was in a family friend’s address book as “Mike Karen,” that could be how the message was sent out.

    There’s another option, pointed out by Borohovski. It’s possible that Pence accidentally downloaded malware to his desktop or phone that then sent out messages from his account. This wouldn’t necessarily require the account itself to be compromised.

    It’s important to note that in 2014, AOL suffered a breach of its email system, with information about some 500,000 accounts — about 2 percent of the total — accessed. Pence would have been prompted to change his email after that breach, and the small scale of affected accounts makes it unlikely that his was among them. Among the data that was stolen? Address book contacts.

    As the Star report notes, if the email was sent only to people in Pence’s address book, that’s evidence that the account was compromised. It’s not clear, though, that this was the case. It’s very hard to know for sure whether Pence’s account was hacked without seeing a copy of the email. The email itself would show us if the email was sent from AOL’s servers, as it would have been if his account had been hacked, or if it was sent through some other server — a forged return address. (If you received the Philippines email from Pence, let me know!)

    Borohovski noted that the situation with Pence potentially being hacked was “fundamentally different” than the situation with Clinton. Access logs indicated that hackers had tried to access her email server. There are no such fingerprints for Pence.

    If you take nothing else away from this story, make it this: Email is a very, very fraught method of communication. Everyone, particularly those in positions of public trust, should be very wary about the security of the emails they send — not to mention the authenticity of questionable messages they receive.

    Pelosi rips Trump tweets: ‘Deflector-in-Chief is at it again’

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) slammed an early-morning tweetstorm by President Trump on Saturday, accusing the president of trying to deflect attention away from a series of stories about his team’s links to Russia.

    “The Deflector-in-Chief is at it again. An investigation by an independent commission is the only answer,” Pelosi wrote on Twitter.

    The tweet was an apparent response to Trump’s earlier rant, in which he accused former President Obama of “wire tapping” his phones during his 2016 presidential bid, comparing it “McCarthyism” and President Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal.

    “How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!” Trump wrote.

    Trump did not cite or provide any proof that Obama ordered the then-presidential candidate’s conversations to be monitored. He may have been referencing a Breitbart News story published Friday alleging that the Obama administration used “police state” tactics to keep tabs on Trump’s campaign.

    Trump also attacked Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck SchumerCharles SchumerPelosi rips Trump tweets: ‘Deflector-in-Chief is at it again’ Top Obama adviser to Trump: ‘No president can order a wiretap’ House, Senate leaders avoid holding town halls MORE (D-N.Y.) on Friday, saying that the two Democrats should be investigated after photos emerged of them meeting with Russian officials — Schumer in 2003 and Pelosi in 2010.

    Both lawmakers pushed back against Trump’s criticisms. Schumer argued that his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin was held in the public eye and with the presence of reporters. Pelosi met with then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in 2010, and pointed out that he had never met one-on-one with Russian officials.

    Trump’s attacks came as his administration faces renewed scrutiny over the president and his aides’ ties to the Kremlin. Attorney General Jeff SessionsJeff SessionsRussian ambassador to skip Gridiron Club dinner: report Pelosi rips Trump tweets: ‘Deflector-in-Chief is at it again’ Sessions to answer Senate Dems’ questions in writing MORE recused himself from federal investigations into Russian election meddling and the Trump campaign after it was revealed that he met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice during the president’s campaign, then denied doing so during his confirmation hearings.

    Schumer and Pelosi pointed out that their concern isn’t that Sessions met with Kislyak, but that he said he had no contact with Russians while under oath during his confirmation hearings.

    That revelation preceded several reports that other current and former Trump associates had similar meetings with Kislyak before Trump took office.

    The president’s first national security adviser Michael Flynn resigned in February amid revelations that he discussed sanctions with Kislyak in December and misled Vice President Mike PenceMike (Michael) Richard PenceRussian ambassador to skip Gridiron Club dinner: report Pelosi rips Trump tweets: ‘Deflector-in-Chief is at it again’ Pence gives 13 boxes of emails to state of Indiana MORE and several others about the nature of those conversations.

    Videos take a starring role for some small business plans

    Making videos can cost almost nothing or run into the tens of thousands of dollars. Arlington Machinery says its animation cost only about $100, but Nardone paid more than $15,000 to produce a series of videos last summer. At Mountain View Vineyard, a Pennsylvania winery that began making videos in the past year, a smartphone and a still camera have kept the costs minimal.

    When marketing director Laurie Monteforte started working at Mountain View a year ago, she made it a priority to create a campaign that included videos. But the standard way of selling wine – showing smiling people gathered around a food-laden table and lifting their glasses in a toast – won’t work in a video, she says.

    “Today’s audience doesn’t want commercials, where we try to sell you something,” Monteforte says.

    Mountain View’s videos teach viewers how to make something with wine, such as red wine hot chocolate, or show some aspect of the winery’s operations. Last summer, owner Linda Rice demonstrated how she hand-picks Japanese beetles off of plants and drops them into soapy water, killing them without chemical pesticides.

    Mountain View says its revenue is up about 30 percent in the past year, and credits about three-quarters of that gain to video and social media.

    “There are so many options where people can go for wine and spirits,” Rice says. “Video and social media set us apart because people get to know us.”

    ___

    Follow Joyce Rosenberg at www.twitter.com/JoyceMRosenberg . Her work can be found here: http://bigstory.ap.org/content/joyce-m-rosenberg

    Viral videos depict fallout between Flash, Zippy

    The long-time rivalry between Kent State and The University of Akron mounted in a viral marketing campaign launched in February. A collaboration between both universities, these videos depicted the origins of the two mascots’ feud: a break-up.

    “I grew up in Kent,” said Meghan Meeker, social media specialist at Akron and the creator of the romance-rivalry videos of Flash and Zippy. “The rivalry had always been on my mind.”

    Weeks before the start of basketball season, Meeker pitched the idea of a break-up between the mascots to Nicole Losi, director of social media at Kent State. Once Meeker brought her idea to Losi over the phone, she had no trouble selling it.

    “I knew the idea was something we wanted to collaborate with,” Losi said. « (It was like) refreshing the rivalry in a fun way.”

    It took one day to film both videos on both campuses. Each university posted the videos that depicted its mascot’s side of the story to social media. On Facebook, Kent State’s has received 74,000 views so far, and Akron has had 73,000.

    “The rivalry video on Instagram and Twitter was our highest performing video since September 2016,” Losi said. “The responses from the videos have been positive as well.”

    Students from both universities find the playful competitiveness engaging.

    “I first heard about the rivalry honestly when I first toured,” said Alex Dexter, a junior applied engineering major at Kent State. “The guide was cracking jokes about Akron.”

    Like Kent State, Akron displays many signs around its campus letting students know when sporting events take place. Theirs just look different than Kent’s on game day.

    “It’s #BeatKent signs everywhere,” said Victor Pyles, a senior history major at Akron.

    Pyles feels the rivalry is good for both institutions because it gives not only the athletes something to look forward to, “but the students get hyped up, too.”

    Dexter and Pyles both watched the marketing videos.

    “They were kind of intense,” Dexter said.

    “I think the videos of Flash and Zippy were pretty cool,” said Pyles. “I wasn’t aware of the relationship between Zippy and Flash before the rivalry.”

    Both Meeker and Losi explained how fun it was to collaborate with each other’s creative teams and that they all will be working together again in the future.

    “I look forward to continuing the relationship,” Losi said. “We worked really well together.”

    Meeker said she thinks the rivalry between both colleges is healthy for one another.

    “(It’s good to) collaborate academically while having something fun to poke at,” Meeker said.

    Friday’s game will be the second the season between Kent State and Akron in the MAC Conference, this time at home in the M.A.C. Center.

    “The atmosphere in the arena will be electric as always,” Pyles said. “Expect a good game.”

    Quaylyn Hairston is an entertainment reporter for the Kent Stater, contact her at qhairsto@kent.edu