Subject: Re: Ratifying next steps for the research process
From: Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>
To: John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 05:00:09 -0500

yes

i have nothing before 930am or i can talk this evening

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 4:12 AM, John Podesta <[email-masked]> wrote:

> We need to talk. Are you in DC?
>
> JP
> --Sent from my iPad--
> [email-masked]
> For scheduling: [email-masked]
>
> On Dec 8, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> 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).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>