Subject: Re: Ratifying next steps for the research process
From: Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>
To: Robert Mook <[email-masked]>
Cc: H <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Huma Abedin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 21:20:31 -0500

Dear Robby

I look forward to reviewing and sharing any thoughts that may be valuable.

My one thought from the conversation I participated in with Wendy is that
her strength is in branding and marketing, using the evidence base in
determining how to generate the behaviors sought in the target audience.
So I think she has the capacity and creativity to drive the brand
development and strategy from inception to execution.  I imagine she would
rely on the data that is being collected through the polling and focus
groups you outline but equally as important, would likely have questions
she might suggest specifically be included in the process.  That's why I'm
not sure she is an advisor in the sense of opining on things as they occur
but instead an actual partner with the team in defining and shaping what
information is needed and then how to synthesize it for the purposes at
hand.

This may make more sense once you meet her and have a thoughtful
conversation about her strenghts and talents.  Then i think her active
engagement can be efficient and productive for the activity you have
outlined.  Should we arrange a time for you to meet her or at least connect
with her by telephone?

best.

cdm

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Robert Mook <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Madame Secretary, Cheryl, John,
>
> Attached is an updated summary of the research process and a budget.  I
> want to emphasize that THIS *WILL* CHANGE because the team will have
> better ideas on methodology and the strategy will evolve as the project
> progresses.  I would still assume our budget will be in the $2+ million
> range per my earlier memo, even though the attached budget is lower than $2
> million (obviously, we are going to make this as cheap as we can without
> sacrificing thoroughness and quality).
>
> Below is information on the participants.  Attached is (1) a revised
> overview of the process and (2) a budget.
>
> *Please let me know if there are any objections or recommended changes,
> otherwise I will proceed with the plan as outlined.*
>
> Thanks!
>
> THE TEAM:
> Pollsters:  Jef Pollock and John Anzalone
>
> Media consultant: Saul Shorr (like Jef and John, I will ask that he
> participate in the project, with no obligation by you or him that he work
> for the campaign, should you decide to run.  I will offer Saul $20k plus
> travel costs to work with us for the next three months and attend a number
> of the focus groups).
>
> Advisors: I will have Wendy provide input on the instruments and
> methodology for the first round--then we can evaluate the degree we want to
> share data.  I would like to talk to her before we lock this in, since I
> have never met her.
>
> SELF RESEARCH
> We don't have a thematically organized set of self research on the your
> accomplishments pre-State.  I would like to give the pollsters full access
> to all raw materials on accomplishments pre 2009, especially the Senate.
> It's very important that we come out of this process understanding which
> accomplishments are most meaningful to voters.
>
> POLICY
> I would like to loop Dan and Jake into drafting of likely policy
> initiatives for testing--they have already provided me some input, but I'd
> like to get them on calls with the team to drill down on this in more
> detail, since it's so important.  I know that policy is still a nascent
> process and will be highly iterative, but I don't think it makes sense to
> do the polling in isolation from the policy work itself (since the research
> should be supporting and informing the policy development).
>
>
>
>