Subject: RE: 3314 Mark Test Results FIN
From: Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>
To: Robby Mook <[email-masked]>, Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>
Cc: John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 17:58:43 +0000

Yes – what I thought was weird is that the numbers were high but the description was not so I couldn’t figure that out.

cdm

From: Robby Mook [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:58 PM
To: Cheryl Mills
Cc: Cheryl Mills; John Podesta
Subject: Re: 3314 Mark Test Results FIN

From the Benenson memo:

➢ That said, the mark doesn’t wow these voters. For an audience of core supporters, the enthusiasm is somewhat muted and we don’t appear to be generating the excitement or a sense of a fresh, new candidacy we had hoped for.
✓ Based on our experience, we would expect the mark to achieve a 20- to 25-point higher top-two box (NET 6-7) response on attributes, given that this audience is already on our side, and wanting to cheer HRC on.

➢ The bottom line is that we believe the mark will be a safe, relatively risk-free choice. It’s unlikely to be a source of discontent or ridicule, but by the same token it is unlikely to inspire a strong, enthusiastic response.

On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
What was the excitement deficit?

The summary of testing I saw looked pretty good

cdm

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Robby Mook <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Madame Secretary, Cheryl, John,
As I've discussed with some of you separately, we felt like we needed to get some other options on the table before choosing a final mark.  I feel very confident that the one we have from Pentagram is a very safe and will do the work we need, but the testing showed an enthusiasm deficit. We also felt generally in our guts that it didn't have the "wow" factor we want.   To be clear, we may never find a "wow" option, which is why we shouldn't feel that the Pentagram option is sub-par.  That said, we decided we owe ourselves some other options and are going to task three other firms with getting us some new designs over the next few days.  If we see something we like, we can choose to test it against the Pentagram mark or just move forward.
I spoke with Wendy about this plan this morning and doesn't think it's the right way to go, but was willing to proceed.  I wanted to flag this in case she reaches out.
She and Teddy will be supervising the incoming creative from the other firms.  She is also going to drill down with Benenson on the data we received since she thinks there needs to be further context on the enthusiasm measure.
So--that's the plan!  Let me know if you have any questions or want to discuss.
Thanks,
Robby

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Katie Connolly <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:07 PM
Subject: 3314 Mark Test Results FIN
To: Robby Mook <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Jim Margolis <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Mandy Grunwald <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "Teddy Goff ([email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Joel Benenson <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>

Evening all,

Please find attached a memo outlining the results of the mark test. Let us know if you have any questions. Joel is on a flight for the next few hours, but I’ll do my best to answer them.

Thanks,
Katie

Katie Connolly
Vice President

Benenson Strategy Group
1901 Pennsylvania Ave | 10th Floor
Washington DC, 20006
O: 202-688-1771<tel:202-688-1771>
C: 202-299-4599<tel:202-299-4599>
www.bsgco.com<http://www.bsgco.com/>