Archives par mot-clé : video

B2B Content Marketing Success Improves: Survey

Source: Content Marketing Institute/MarketingProfs
Source: Content Marketing Institute/MarketingProfs

This is impressive, especially considering that over half the respondents (53 percent) said a small (sometimes one person) team serves the content marketing needs of the organization. Only 26 percent have a centralized team working on content for the entire organization; four percent said each department/brand has a content marketing team, and 13 percent said their organization had a mix of both approaches.

The survey—“B2B Content Marketing 2018: Benchmarks, Budgets and Trends, North America,” conducted by Content Marketing Institute and MarketingProfs, and sponsored by Brightcove—showed that content creation was the most likely content marketing function to be outsourced, with 47 percent saying they hired outside writers, designers and video producers.

The top factors leading to improved content marketing this year included higher quality content (78 percent), improved content strategies (72 percent), better targeting and distribution (50 percent) and content being considered a higher priority (49 percent).

Over two-thirds of respondents said they had a content marketing strategy in place, but only 37 percent said it was documented; 19 percent plan to get a strategy in place over the next 12 months. For the six percent that did not plan to implement a strategy, the biggest hurdles were having a team too small for the task (67 percent) or a lack of time (44 percent).

Social media posts were cited as the most popular type of content being produced (94 percent), followed by case studies (73 percent), videos (72 percent), ebooks/whitepapers (71 percent) and infographics (65 percent).

Email continues to be a valuable channel for B2B marketers, with 93 percent of respondents citing it as the best way to distribute content. Social media was a close second at 92 percent, followed by blogs (79 percent), in-person events (56 percent) and webinars/virtual events (55 percent).

Attribution of content marketing ROI appears to be a grey area in some organizations: Only 35 percent of respondents said they were measuring the ROI of these initiatives. Thirty-eight percent of respondents expect their content marketing budgets to increase over the next 12 months.

The survey of 2,190 marketers was conducted in June/July 2017.

 

Related Articles:

Special Report: B2B Marketing Automation All-Stars

What Are the Biggest B2B Pain Points?

Creating B2B Content That Connects

StackCommerce buys Joyus to focus on video and expand into fashion, shopping and beauty


StackCommerce, which sells articles sponsored by brands and published on websites, has acquired the online video marketing company Joyus in an all cash transaction to expand its advertising footprint in media targeting women and work more with online video.

The media market for fashion, women’s health, and shopping is a new one for StackCommerce which has worked closely with websites like Mashable, Engadget and others. The company’s service is similar to Wirecutter, offering brands a chance to sell their gear on websites with sponsored reviews.

Now, with Joyus, which started life as an online Home Shopping Network and pivoted into providing video reviews for websites like Aol (which is owned by Oath, which also owns me and my words) or Refinery29, StackCommerce can go after publishers that focus on health, fashion, beauty, and design.

While Joyus had raised $67 million in financing from investors including Accel Partners, Marker, Steamboat Ventures, InterWest Partners, and TimeWarner Investments, StackCommerce took a much more capital efficient approach to its growth.

The Los Angeles-based startup had raised a minuscule $800,000 in seed funding back in 2012 (it was the company’s only outside investment). Backers in that round included 500 Startups, Amplify.LA, Draper Associates, EchoVC Partners, Paige Craig, Tim Draper, and Wavemaker Partners.

Terms of the acquisition were undisclosed, but a person familiar with the transaction said it was less than $50 million.

As a result of the acquisition, Joyus’ team is getting cut, according to a person with knowledge of the deal. Select team members will be joining StackCommerce in specific roles that have yet to be determined the person said.

While this is StackCommerce’s first acquisition, it likely won’t be the company’s last. The company, which is working with over 750 publishers today, will likely want to expand its suite of monetization tools to include data targeting and personalization and subscription-based services.

From its humble beginnings in Los Angeles, StackCommerce has grown to employ 65 people form its headquarters in Venice. The company rolled out two new offerings earlier this year including a  Brand Studio product that lets publishers make on-demand advertising copy using the company’s editorial and video resources, and a feature called Momentum which distributes the company’s white-labeled reviews and advertisements across different social media properties.

Featured Image: Photo by Brian Ach/Getty Images for Wired/Getty Images

Critical Review: Datawatch Corporation (NASDAQ:DWCH) and Brightcove (BCOV)

Brightcove (NASDAQ: BCOV) and Datawatch Corporation (NASDAQ:DWCH) are both small-cap computer and technology companies, but which is the superior business? We will compare the two companies based on the strength of their valuation, analyst recommendations, risk, dividends, earnings, institutional ownership and profitability.

Risk and Volatility

<!–

–>

Brightcove has a beta of 1.81, indicating that its stock price is 81% more volatile than the SP 500. Comparatively, Datawatch Corporation has a beta of 1.02, indicating that its stock price is 2% more volatile than the SP 500.

Earnings Valuation

This table compares Brightcove and Datawatch Corporation’s top-line revenue, earnings per share and valuation.

Datawatch Corporation has higher revenue, but lower earnings than Brightcove. Datawatch Corporation is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than Brightcove, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

Insider and Institutional Ownership

62.2% of Brightcove shares are owned by institutional investors. Comparatively, 40.7% of Datawatch Corporation shares are owned by institutional investors. 12.7% of Brightcove shares are owned by company insiders. Comparatively, 17.7% of Datawatch Corporation shares are owned by company insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that large money managers, hedge funds and endowments believe a company is poised for long-term growth.

Profitability

This table compares Brightcove and Datawatch Corporation’s net margins, return on equity and return on assets.

Analyst Recommendations

This is a breakdown of current recommendations for Brightcove and Datawatch Corporation, as provided by MarketBeat.

Brightcove currently has a consensus price target of $7.67, indicating a potential upside of 6.48%. Datawatch Corporation has a consensus price target of $10.00, indicating a potential downside of 13.42%. Given Brightcove’s higher probable upside, analysts clearly believe Brightcove is more favorable than Datawatch Corporation.

Summary

Datawatch Corporation beats Brightcove on 7 of the 12 factors compared between the two stocks.

About Brightcove

Brightcove Inc. is a global provider of cloud-based services for video. The Company’s products and services include Brightcove Video Cloud (Video Cloud), Brightcove Zencoder (Zencoder), Brightcove Once (Once), Brightcove Perform (Perform), Brightcove Video Marketing Suite (Video Marketing Suite), Brightcove Lift (Lift), Brightcove OTT Flow (OTT Flow) and Brightcove Enterprise Video Suite (Enterprise Video Suite), among others. Video Cloud is an online video platform. Video Cloud enables its customers to publish and distribute video to Internet-connected devices. Zencoder is a cloud-based video encoding service. Once is a cloud-based advertisement insertion and video stitching service. Perform is a cloud-based service for creating and managing video player experiences. Video Marketing Suite is a suite of video technologies designed to address the needs of marketers to drive awareness, engagement and conversion.

About Datawatch Corporation

Datawatch Corporation is engaged in the design, development, marketing, distribution and support of business computer software primarily for the self-service data preparation and visual data discovery markets. The Company also provides services, including implementation and support of its software products, as well as training on their use and administration. The Company’s product family includes Datawatch Monarch, Datawatch Panopticon and Datawatch Report Mining Server (RMS). The Company offers its enterprise products through perpetual licenses and subscription pricing models. The Company also offers educational services for customers and partners implementing and learning about the platform, maintenance and support, and professional services to provide in-depth technical assistance for software implementations. The Company offers an array of live and virtual classroom instruction, including private onsite classes.




Receive News Ratings for Brightcove Inc. Daily – Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts’ ratings for Brightcove Inc. and related companies with MarketBeat.com’s FREE daily email newsletter.

Meet the Air Force general who delivered a powerful lesson in leadership

Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria had an important message for the U.S. Air Force Academy cadets at a moment of crisis.

Five black cadet candidates at the academy’s preparatory school in Colorado Springs had found racial slurs written on the message boards on their doors.

Silveria, who took over as the school’s superintendent in August, urged the approximately 4,000 cadets to reach for their phones.

“I want you to videotape this so you have it, so you can use it — so that we all have the moral courage together,” he said, surrounded by 1,500 of the academy’s faculty, administrators and athletic coaches.

“If you can’t treat someone with dignity and respect, get out.”

Silveria’s forceful denunciation has been heard far beyond the walls of the academy in Colorado, introducing the veteran officer to a national audience.

“I wanted to have a direct conversation with them about the power of diversity,” Silveria told CNN’s Brook Baldwin on Friday, referring to the cadets. “Ultimately, these men and women are going to be lieutenants in the United States Air Force.”

Baldwin read Silveria messages of support on Twitter and asked him whether he believed Washington needed better leadership. He replied that his “message to the cadets was not about that.”

He said his speech was intended to show the cadets that they were all united “as an institution protecting these values.”

On Twitter, Silveria has been widely praised for his leadership, with some suggesting he should run for office one day.

A video of the speech on the Air Force Academy’s Facebook page has been viewed more than 1.7 million times, and a tweet of the same has been shared more than 22,000 times. Commenters praised the general for his leadership and unequivocal response: “This is how you respond to racism in America.”

Silveria, who graduated from the Air Force Academy in 1985 with a bachelor of science degree, succeeded the academy’s first female superintendent, Lt. Gen. Michelle Johnson.

In his 32-year career, Silveria has nearly 4,000 hours of flight time, including combat missions over Iraq and the Balkans, making him one of the Air Force’s most experienced pilots, according to the Colorado Springs Gazette.

“When it came time to pick the next superintendent, Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria was the obvious choice,” Gen. David Goldfein, the branch’s chief of staff, said at Silveria’s appointment ceremony, according to the Gazette. “I don’t believe we have an officer serving in the Air Force today with more combat time, more joint credibility, or more operational understanding of the art of modern war.”

Shortly before the ceremony, Silveria, the Air Force Academy’s 20th superintendent, was promoted from major general to lieutenant general, the rank required for the position, the Gazette reported.

He was previously deputy commander of U.S. Air Forces Central Command and deputy commander of Central Command’s Combined Forces Air Component in southwest Asia, according to Military.com.

Read more:

A mother went on an 11-day European vacation — and left her children at home alone, police say

A kid walked into a GameStop wearing a Kaepernick jersey. Two NFL players bought him an Xbox.

Hugh Hefner, the murder of Dorothy Stratten and the dark side of Playboy

Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price resigns after criticism for taking charter flights at taxpayer expense

Tom Price, President Trump’s embattled health and human services secretary, resigned Friday amid sharp criticism of his extensive use of taxpayer-funded charter flights, the White House said.

The announcement came shortly after Trump told reporters he considered Price a “fine man” but that he “didn’t like the optics” and planned to make a decision by the end of the day.

“I’m not happy, I can tell you that. I’m not happy,” Trump said as prepared to leave the White House en route to his private golf club in Bedminster, N.J.

In a statement, the White House said Trump would designate Don J. Wright as acting secretary. Wright currently serves as the deputy assistant secretary for health and director of the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Price submitted a four-paragraph resignation letter to the White House in which he said he regretted “that the recent events have created a distraction” from the administration’s objectives. “Success on these issues is more important than any one person,” he continued.

A short time later, HHS staff received a message from Price praising the staff as “dedicated, committed” and saying it had been “a great joy” to serve with them.

He closed: “Duty is Ours — Results are the Lord’s!”

Price had announced Thursday that he would reimburse the government for a fraction of the costs of his flights on charter planes in recent months. An HHS official said Price would write a check for $51,887.31, which appears to cover the cost of his seat on chartered flights but not those of his staffers.

Politico, which first reported on Price’s repeated use of chartered jets, has estimated the total expense of the taxpayer-funded trips exceeded $400,000 — and it reported early Thursday evening that his White House-approved flights on military planes to Africa, Europe and Asia cost more than $500,000.

Besides the charter flight issue, Trump has also directed some of his frustration at Price over the inability of Republicans in Congress to pass a health-care reform bill.

During a speech in July to a gathering of Boy Scouts, Trump said — jokingly at the time — that Price could lose his job if a bill didn’t pass.

“He better get the votes,” Trump said. “Otherwise I will say, Tom, you’re fired.”

Outside the administration, Price has been a controversial figure since the time of his confirmation hearings nine months ago, but it was the revelation of his high-priced transportation for his travels as secretary that got him in trouble inside the White House.

The repeated reliance on charters, including for distances as short as between Washington and Philadelphia, contrasts markedly with the travel of his two immediate predecessors during the Obama administration.

As the reports prompted the HHS inspector general to begin an examination of the trips, the secretary initially said that he would suspend such trips until the inquiry was complete.

On Thursday, he amended that to say that he would no longer take such flights, issuing a statement in which he said that his private-charter travel had been approved by legal and HHS officials but that he regretted “the concerns this has raised regarding the use of taxpayer dollars.”

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, who had pushed for the then-Georgia congressman to lead HHS in the Trump administration, released a statement calling Price “a good man. He has spent his entire adult life fighting for others, first as a physician and then as a legislator and public servant. He was a leader in the House and a superb health secretary.”

The ruckus prompted by the secretary’s travel habits followed complaints earlier this year by Democrats and other critics about his ethics for a separate reason: private investments he made while a House member in health-care companies that could have benefited from bills that he sponsored.

At his confirmation hearing in late January, the Senate Finance Committee’s senior Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), accused the nominee of “a conflict of interest and an abuse of position.” The main focus of such criticism involved Price’s largest stock purchase in 2016 — between $50,000 and $100,000 — in an Australian biomedical firm called Innate Immunotherapeutics.

The investment coincided with final negotiations on the sweeping 21st Century Cures bill, aimed in part at helping to accelerate clinical trials and approval of drugs like Innate’s.

Price acknowledged that the purchase, and several smaller ones he’d made in the company the previous year, occurred without an investment broker. As part of his confirmation, he testified before members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that he had learned of the company from a House colleague, Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), an Innate board member.

The 2016 investment was done through what’s known as a “private placement offering” made by a company to a select group of potential investors. Price contended that he received no insider information ahead of time.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the HELP Committee’s ranking member, reacted to Price’s departure Friday by focusing on “the serious, unanswered questions about improper financial benefits.” She also faulted his approach to health care as “ideologically driven,” particularly on women’s health and reproductive rights.

“The fact that this decision took this long only indicates the extent to which the Trump Administration allows its senior officials to put themselves, and partisan politics, ahead of families and communities,” Murray said in a statement.

Other criticism of Price revolved around his uncommon reliance on campaign contributions from the health-care industry. During his 2016 campaign for a seventh House term, he accepted more than $700,000 from physicians, hospitals, drug companies and health insurers, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Price’s views — abhorring the Affordable Care Act and other forms of what he regards as government intrusion into health care — fit neatly within the Trump administration’s orthodoxy. But the secretary, an orthopedic surgeon before pivoting into politics, arrived at the helm of HHS holding a variety of views that deviate from the basics of federal health policy.

He has been a longtime member of an alternative medical group called the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which opposes Medicare, the highly popular government insurance for older Americans, and offers training to doctors on how to opt out of the program. The group also opposes mandatory vaccination as “equivalent to human experimentation,” a stance contrary to requirements in every state and recommendations of major medical organizations and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

At his confirmation hearing, Price equivocated on the subject of vaccination, though he made positive statements about it later on.

In public speeches in the years before he became secretary, Price deplored HHS’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services — a key agency within the department he would run.

Perhaps most notably, Price as a congressman supported policies that favored his fellow physicians. He championed tighter limits on medical malpractice cases against doctors. And at his confirmation hearing, he said: “Anything that gets in the way of the patient … their families and physicians making the decisions about what kind of health care they desire . . . we ought not go down that road.”

The new acting secretary is trained as a physician and public health specialist focusing on family medicine and preventive care. Before arriving at HHS about a decade ago, Wright had extensive experience in occupational health. In response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina, he convened conferences designed to improve hospitals’ preparation for various kinds of disasters.

Wright has held several senior roles at the department. During the final two years of the George W. Bush administration, he was the department’s principal deputy assistant secretary for health and, in that role, also served as the alternate U.S. delegate to the World Health Organization Executive Board.

In 2012, he became the department’s deputy assistant secretary for health and director of the disease prevention and health promotion office. In February, he was named HHS’s acting assistant secretary for health.

Lena H. Sun, Paige Winfield Cunningham and Kelsey Snell contributed to this report.

Is Autoplay Block the New Ad Block? Disruptive Digital Marketing Strikes Again

Ever been blasted by an annoying autoplay video on a website? You’re not alone in your frustration.

Incensed by disruptive, annoying digital marketing techniques, users are fighting back. Ad blockers were the first step. Now, new browser options will allow people to block autoplay video content, too.

That’s good news for users who are sick of annoying, disruptive ads. But for brands that rely on disruptive techniques (and for publishers who rely on autoplay ad revenue), the rise of autoplay block will be a tough pill to swallow.

So why do digital marketers insist on annoying potential customers with autoplay video content, and is there an alternative?

A History of Annoyance

Marketers have long sought ways to break through the digital clutter. Pop-up ads used to seriously cramp our web-surfing style by forcing us to divert our browsing pattern—at least until browsers offered the option to block them entirely. Display ads disrupted our ability to absorb content, until ad blockers came into vogue. These days, nearly 20 percent of US users deploy an ad blocker, according to Business Insider, a figure that’s cutting off one marketing pathway to customers as well as throttling publisher revenue.

Autoplay video has all the hallmarks of its disruptive predecessors. It’s annoying, distracting, and irritating. And, unfortunately for users, it’s everywhere.

Autoplay video wasn’t always the video marketing norm, however. Facebook, ever the trendsetter, started autoplaying videos in users’ news feeds back in 2013 and normalized the practice. Other sites followed suit. “Since Facebook made autoplay video acceptable again, publishers have jumped on the bandwagon. It’s widespread,” said Eric Franchi, a digital media and marketing angel investor and co-founder of the ad-tech firm Undertone, in Adweek.

Unlike our visceral reaction to, say, an annoying pop-up ad, the use of autoplay on Facebook didn’t receive widespread derision. Perhaps that’s because on Facebook, content we want to see—video from friends, family, or publishers we follow—is intermixed with video content we didn’t ask to see, like sponsored posts.

It’s also possible that autoplay video content piques our interest in a unique psychological way. Humans are curious by nature, and showing us a split second of autoplay video as we wander through our news feed is often enough to hijack our thought process and distract us from whatever we were originally thinking or doing, tempting us to watch longer and capture a new nugget of information.

Now, Facebook has taken things a step further by making autoplay videos play with sound by default. If videos without sound captured our attention, imagine how effectively distracting videos with sound will be.

Autoplay Revolt?

Of course, not everyone is happy with the autoplay video revolution. When you’re reading a news article and suddenly a video blasts sound from a player buried in a sidebar, it’s infuriating. I’ve even had problems figuring out where the sound is coming from on a website, particularly if I have multiple tabs open.

Survey data show plenty of people share my frustration. Nearly 80 percent of users report reacting negatively to autoplay ads, according to a Hubspot survey.

autoplay perceptions digital marketing Hubspot report

What’s more, four out of five consumers report that they’ve closed a browser or left a website because of an autoplay ad or a pop-up—defeating the purpose of the ad entirely.

Hubspot autoplay closed page

As a result, the tech giants are swooping in. Apple offers an autoplay block feature on its latest Safari browser. According to TechCrunch, the option allows users to keep autoplay videos paused until you elect to unpause them.

Google has made changes to its browser, Chrome, to similarly block annoying ads. The latest version will only allow autoplay videos if the user has shown interest in the clip by clicking or tapping somewhere on the site during the browsing session, according to The Verge. “This will allow autoplay to occur when users want media to play, and respect users’ wishes when they don’t,” the company said in a statement.

Like ad blockers, the trend toward autoplay could leave disruptive-ad-dependent brands reeling.

A Better Alternative

Autoplay video is reviled by users, forcing many of them to leave a website rather than play the ad. Other users may listen to just a second or two of the video before browsing elsewhere, crippling that video’s effectiveness. And now, browser changes will make it easy for users to opt out of disruptive autoplay ads.

It’s clear marketers need to reduce—even eliminate—their reliance on disruptive video marketing. To get people’s attention, marketers don’t have to annoy or abuse. They just need to offer the type of content consumers want in the format they want it in.

Native advertising—which refers to sponsored or branded content that looks and feels like the content around it—offers one alternative. Less disruptive and more effective, native advertising has major plusses for marketers looking for new ways to reach their target audience. Using thought leaders and influencers to expand your content reach is another viable option.

Generally speaking, focusing on delivering great content in an appealing way should be the goal. Digital marketing isn’t about wrenching eyeballs away with the most annoying ad possible. Content marketing and native advertising offer more effective alternatives.

For more stories like this, subscribe to the Content Standard newsletter.

Subscribe to the Content Standard

Featured image attribution: Sticker Mule

Senator Berates Twitter Over ‘Inadequate’ Inquiry Into Russian Meddling

Twitter identified only 22 accounts on its platform that were directly tied to the Russian Facebook pages and then discovered another 179 accounts that were “related or linked” to the Facebook accounts. None were registered on the site as advertisers, the company said.

Twitter did not immediately respond to Mr. Warner’s criticism.

Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was more diplomatic about Twitter’s briefing for House investigators, calling it “good, but preliminary.”

“I think there is a great deal more that we need to know, a great deal more that Twitter needs to find out,” he said. Mr. Schiff said Twitter faced greater difficulty in tracing accounts because its users provide less information than Facebook users when they sign up.

“At the same time, I don’t think we have more than scratched the surface of our understanding of how the Russians may have used that platform,” he said.

Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Republican chairman, would not answer questions about the briefing on Thursday, and his spokeswoman declined to comment. Mr. Warner said that he and Mr. Burr would hold a news conference as soon as next week to update the public on their investigation and try to draw attention to the continuing threat by foreign entities to the American political system.

In a statement issued on its blog, Twitter did not address extensive research by outside experts that has identified far more suspected Russian activity during and since the election.

The cybersecurity company FireEye found hundreds of automated accounts linked to Russian hacking groups, which sent out messages critical of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats last year.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Nor did Twitter address a web “dashboard” set up last month by researchers to track and compile statistics on 600 Twitter accounts that the researchers believe to be linked to the Russian government or to have a longstanding pattern of repeating its propaganda. The company’s statement said nothing about still-functioning Twitter accounts of DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, which American intelligence officials identified last year as created by Russian agents to distribute emails and documents obtained by hacking.

Mr. Warner said he was “more than a bit surprised in light of all of the public interest in this subject over the last few weeks that anyone from the Twitter team would think that the presentation they made to Senate staff today even began to answer the kinds of questions that we’d asked.”

He said the company had much more work to do.

“This raises at an even greater level the necessity that the American public has the ability to know when they are seeing a political ad, who’s behind it — particularly if it is being sponsored by foreign agents,” he said.

In its briefings for congressional investigators and its public statement, Twitter did not identify any of the suspect accounts by name. The company said it had suspended accounts that violated its terms of service, suggesting that it had allowed some of the Russia-linked accounts to continue to function.

Clinton Watts, a former F.B.I. agent who has tracked suspected Russian activity on Twitter for several years, said the platform had proved especially vulnerable to abuse, in part because the company demands little information from users. Twitter was used for years by the Islamic State for propaganda and recruiting, though much of that activity has now been shut down.

“Bad people can do what they want on this platform,” said Mr. Watts, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia. “I think they have real problems trying to trace the Russian activity.”

Facebook briefed the two intelligence committees on Sept. 6 and revealed that it had connected 470 profiles and pages to a shadowy Russian company with Kremlin links called the Internet Research Agency. It said the pages had placed 3,000 ads on Facebook costing about $100,000. It found another $50,000 in ads that it believed might have a Russian source.

While some of the pages and ads praised Donald J. Trump and excoriated Mrs. Clinton, Facebook said that most of the material sought to exacerbate divisions over immigration, race, guns, gay rights and other incendiary issues. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus wrote a letter this week to Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, asking the company to look more deeply into the Russian activity.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Congressional investigators want to know more about how the Russia-linked Facebook ads were targeted to specific geographic and demographic groups. Officials familiar with Facebook’s briefings for Congress confirmed a CNN report that Russia-linked Facebook ads promoting the Black Lives Matter movement were specifically targeted at residents of Baltimore and Ferguson, Mo., both of which had been roiled by protests in response to police violence against black men.

Mr. Warner said on Thursday that the committee was still waiting for Facebook to deliver a set of ads that it had identified. He said he expected the material to be delivered by early next week.

The Senate committee has asked Google officials to come for a private briefing in the coming weeks, according to a congressional aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the aide was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. The committee has invited Facebook, Twitter and Google to testify on Nov. 1.

The House Intelligence Committee announced on Wednesday that it intended to hold its own public hearing with tech companies next month, but it has yet to announce a date.


Continue reading the main story

Tom Price apologizes for private-charter flights, pledges to repay taxpayers nearly $52000


Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price says he will repay the federal treasury for some of his recent travels. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)

This post has been updated.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said Thursday that he would reimburse the government for a fraction of the costs of his flights on charter planes in recent months, after coming under sharp criticism from members of both parties for the expensive practice.

“Today, I will write a personal check to the U.S. Treasury for the expenses of my travel on private charter planes. The taxpayers won’t pay a dime for my seat on those planes,” Price said in a statement, adding that he will no longer take private planes while serving as secretary. “No exceptions.”

The move came as House and Senate investigators are pressing Price, as well as other Cabinet members, to disclose the extent to which they have relied on noncommercial travel to travel across the United States and overseas. The recent revelations about these costly trips on military and private aircraft, at a time when the same officials have proposed dramatic cuts in the agencies they oversee, has put the administration on the defensive.

Price has come under the most intense scrutiny — President Trump chastised him publicly Wednesday and suggested his job was no longer secure — but lawmakers are also demanding probes of travel by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. Pruitt has taken at least four noncommercial and military flights since mid-February, according to congressional oversight records, costing taxpayers more than $58,000, while Mnuchin is under investigation by the Treasury inspector general for his use of a government plane to visit Kentucky as well as one for a trip from New York City to Washington.

And a private plane chartered this summer by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, for a flight from Las Vegas to near his home in Montana, cost taxpayers $12,375, according to a department spokesman. Zinke also used private flights during a trip to the Virgin Islands.

Last week, Price’s office explained that he had turned to chartered jets when needed for the most efficient and effective travel in managing his department and maintaining contact with the public.

“This is Secretary Price, getting outside of D.C., making sure he is connected with the real American people,” said Charmaine Yoest, his assistant secretary for public affairs.

An HHS official said Thursday that Price would write a check for $51,887.31, which appears to cover the cost of his seat on chartered flights but not those of his staffers. Politico, which first reported on Price’s repeated use of chartered jets, has estimated the total expense of the trips exceeded $400,000 — and it reported early Thursday evening that his White House-approved flights on military planes to Africa, Europe and Asia cost more than $500,000.

Yoest said in an interview that Price needed the military aircraft for secure communications during the overseas trips, which included roughly half a dozen aides. His wife Betty also joined him, she added, but Price covered the cost of her travel.

“Being able to maintain secure communications with the secretary is also something of particular concern without a deputy secretary,” she said, and the number of aides accompanying him depends “on who are the experts he needs have with him.”

Both of Price’s overseas trips addressed issues of global health security. His trip to Africa and Europe in May included stops in Liberia, the site of the 2014 Ebola outbreak; the first G-20 health ministers’ summit in Berlin; and a meeting of the World Health Assembly in Geneva. His August trip to China, Vietnam, and Japan consisted of meetings with foreign officials and health experts.

White House spokesman Raj Shah said using “military aircraft for cabinet and other essential travelers is sometimes an appropriate and necessary use of resources” and such requests are closely reviewed. Officials have “limited support missions to travel that is central to the White House’s mission.”

Although the secretary said in his statement that his private-charter travel had been approved by legal and HHS officials, he added that he regretted “the concerns this has raised regarding the use of taxpayer dollars.”

“All of my political career I’ve fought for the taxpayers,” Price said. “It is clear to me that in this case, I was not sensitive enough to my concern for the taxpayer. I know as well as anyone that the American people want to know that their hard-earned dollars are being spent wisely by government officials.”

Price said he will continue to cooperate fully with the HHS inspector general’s office, which is reviewing the flights. He also said he has initiated his own departmental review to determine if any changes or reforms are necessary.

On Wednesday, Trump was noncommittal about whether he would ask Price to resign. Responding to questions from reporters at the White House, Trump said he was “looking into” details of the secretary’s travels and that “personally, I’m not happy about it, and I let him know it.”

It is unclear whether Price’s gesture to defray part of the flights’ cost will be enough to save his job; the White House did not comment on that matter after his announcement.

At a briefing before Price issued his statement Thursday, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president and his aides were waiting to see what happened with the HHS inspector general’s probe and other investigations also underway. House Democrats, who requested the inspector general’s involvement, have said Price’s flights appeared to violate federal law intended to ensure that executive branch officials use the most economical travel available.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) asked Trump on Thursday to impose a government-wide ban on the use of charter flights by administration officials and to detail “what steps the administration has taken to ensure that cabinet secretaries use the most fiscally responsible travel in accordance with the public trust they hold and the spirit and the letter of all laws, regulations, and policies that apply.”

That followed a request Tuesday by the chairman and ranking member of the House Oversight Committee that Price and more than 20 other agency heads list all use of private, charter aircraft and government-owned aircraft by political employees since the president’s inauguration.

The Treasury inspector general is reviewing all of Mnuchin’s flights and his travel requests, including one his office made for a government jet to fly him and his wife, Louise Linton, on a honeymoon trip to Europe this summer.

“We’re going through this process, we’re going to do a full review and we’ll see what happens,” Sanders told reporters.

“To be clear, the White House does not have a role on the front end of approving private charter flights at agencies,” she said. “That’s something we’re certainly looking into from this point forward and have asked a halt to be put, particularly at HHS, on any private charter flights.”

Even some of Price’s longtime allies have questioned his frequent use of private aircraft to journey to places where he owns property, such as St. Simons Island, Ga., and Nashville. One trip included a get-together with his son.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, said in an interview Wednesday that the juxtaposition of the secretary’s lavish trips and the budget cuts he i seeking posed a serious problem.

“Optics matter in politics,” Cole said.

Lena H. Sun and John Wagner contributed to this report.

 

It was candidate Trump’s best trick. Now it’s stalling President Trump’s agenda.

After eight months of negotiations, White House officials and Republican leaders last week arrived at a secret, hard-fought compromise: They would push to lower the corporate tax rate to 20 percent.

On Sunday, President Trump walked alone to a group of reporters on a runway in New Jersey and told them his preference for the corporate tax: 15 percent.

It’s indicative of an approach Trump has employed throughout his presidency: He has taken a hands-off approach to working out policy details, keeping clear of granular discussions and declining to take a stand on the thorniest questions. When plans are almost ready, he has — again and again — demanded that they be, in vague terms, better.

The approach was successful as a presidential candidate: It allowed Trump to promise his presidency would yield big benefits for his supporters. But by not laying out details of how he planned to deliver, Trump left his opponents with little to latch onto.

As president, however, it has yet to yield a major legislative victory — despite Republicans controlling both the House and Senate.

“It’s the chickens coming home to roost,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Congressional Budget Office director who advised Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) during his 2008 presidential run. “This operating style I don’t think serves the process very well, and I think he got trapped into it by not being specific enough on the campaign.”

Now, Trump and congressional Republicans are getting another chance to claim a big victory — an opportunity to rewrite the U.S. tax code for the first time in three decades. So far, Trump has shown no signs of modifying his approach.

After dozens of closed-door meetings and public hearings, the White House and GOP leaders have still not sorted through many of the most vital details of Trump’s promise to deliver the largest tax cut in U.S. history.

There is, in short, no hammered-out tax plan, only a nine-page framework of GOP goals that have yet to be filled in or agreed to. Lawmakers now plan to clash over the details, with the White House staying in touch but giving them room to negotiate.

They stuck with the 20 percent tax-rate target in the “unified framework” released Wednesday, but some people close to Trump fear he might waver again.

Speaking Wednesday in Indiana, Trump said the tax rate would end up being “no higher than 20 percent,” leaving the door open for him to keep trying to push it lower.

“These tax cuts are significant,” he said. “There’s never been tax cuts like we’re talking about.”

The nine-page document released Wednesday pales in scope to the 461-page tax plan the Reagan administration offered in 1985 that helped shepherd the last tax overhaul into law.

On health care, infrastructure, the deficit and a range of other issues, the Trump administration has stopped short of specifying its platform.

On Tuesday, Trump told a handful of Republicans and Democrats in a White House meeting that he was now opposed to public-private partnerships for infrastructure programs. He cited the example of a toll road in northern Indiana that fell into bankruptcy.

“He dismissed it categorically and said it doesn’t work,” said Rep. Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.), who brought up the issue with Trump at the White House. “And in fact, pointed to [Vice President Pence] and said they tried in their state and it didn’t work.”

Senior administration officials were flabbergasted. They had spent months designing a $1 trillion infrastructure plan that centered on the idea of privatizing roads, air traffic control systems and other networks. On Wednesday, they were still trying to sort through whether Trump had misspoken or changed policy.

Trump’s team had planned to issue his infrastructure plan in May, but they have been beset by delays, in part because they cannot agree on how to finance the entire operation.

The indecision has been most evident on health-care policy.

Trump vowed to roll back the Affordable Care Act on his first day in office, but the White House never advanced a single substantive health-care proposal, relying instead on Congress, which failed multiple times to enact changes into law. When the House passed a bill in June, Trump said he supported it and hosted a Rose Garden celebration with dozens of lawmakers.

He later complained to Senate Republicans that the bill was “mean” and said they needed to change it. He didn’t specify how.

Similarly, he has cast about for ways to construct a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico, but the Trump administration has not settled on any approach, and key decisions keep getting postponed.

His budget proposal was so sparse on details that the Congressional Budget Office said they could not adequately review it, adding that “the proposals . . . are in many cases not sufficiently specified,” and in some cases found the White House’s economic claims would “not be achievable.” There is not a complete White House plan to eliminate the deficit or expand access to health care, things that Trump has promised voters.

This is markedly different from past White House operations, which have often buried Capitol Hill in paperwork and policy proposals hoping to have a lead role in how bills are written.

President Barack Obama’s top aides in 2009 helped write a 1,000-page draft health-care bill that would serve as an initial iteration of the Affordable Care Act, drawing support and opposition to a debate that would last for months.

To be sure, that approach does not always work. The Clinton administration tried to play a lead role in the drafting of health-care changes, but Congress balked and it ended up a chief unfinished goal of Bill Clinton’s presidency.

Trump administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to comment on sensitive discussions, said they took a cautious approach with the tax plan, in part to avoid looking as if they cut a secret deal without input from lawmakers. They also wanted to defer, at times, to lawmakers who had spent years working on tax cuts. National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn has said the plan was for the White House to serve as a “guiding light.”

But lawmakers and senior Capitol Hill aides were also skeptical that Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, their main interlocutors, could negotiate on behalf of Trump, who is famous for changing his mind on some occasions and refusing to budge on others.

White House officials say they learned a hard lesson from the failed effort to roll back the Affordable Care Act, which featured numerous competing GOP plans the party never coalesced around. By moving more slowly on tax cuts, White House officials hope, they have a greater chance to bring people aboard.

Those decisions will now be tested.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the new GOP framework would cut taxes by $5.8 trillion and recoup $3.6 trillion by eliminating mostly unspecified tax deductions that many companies will fight to preserve. Even if all those battles are won, it will lead to a $2.2 trillion gap in revenue over 10 years, the committee forecast, a level that could prove difficult to push through Congress.

Trump has shown an element of urgency on the tax push, though, and he has told aides he wants it completed by the end of the year. Still, Republican leaders struggled for months to reach agreements on specifics, at times leaving final decisions for later. For example, the tax framework does not mention raising taxes on hedge fund managers, even though Trump has promised to do that for months.

And negotiators haggled for weeks about a way to ensure the wealthy did not benefit disproportionately from the tax overhaul, but they never agreed on how to prevent it.

Republicans on Capitol Hill seemed willing to step in now and try to take the nine-page framework and mold it into a tax bill, which many of them say will give lawmakers a bigger say in the process.

“I’m actually grateful they’re letting us fill in many of the blanks,” said Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.).

Mnuchin had long said the goal for the tax-cut bill was to pass it by August, but Republicans working on the plan didn’t even have the nine-page framework by then. Now, lawmakers have only a couple of months to decide which tax breaks to jettison, what changes should be permanent,and whether to prevent the wealthy from receiving too much as part of the deal. Administration officials want the tax deal to be finished by the end of the year.

As Republicans push forward, advisers to Trump’s predecessor warn that the White House has completely miscalculated the amount of planning and details necessary to convince the public that such a plan has been properly vetted.

“I’ve never seen an administration that so overpromised in terms of specific plans and underdelivered,” said Jason Furman, who served as deputy director of the National Economic Council and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Obama administration. “They promised detailed plans on everything and have put forward plans on nothing.”

Mike DeBonis and Tory Newmyer contributed to this report.