Direct marketers start with lots of questions. Answers have to be relevant facts. We don’t care about opinions. No questions are out of bounds and there are no hissy fits when they’re asked.

The first round of Qs is about planning.
Why are we even talking about doing this? (If there’s no sensible answer, we stop and go out for martinis.)
How quickly can we learn everything about what we’re doing?
What’s the allowable?
What are we really selling? (Security, convenience, value, ego-stroking, etc.)
Assets (budget, database, personnel, suppliers, brand awareness, brand attributes, testimonials, spokesman, research, etc.)?
Who’s done anything like this and how did it work out? (Hint: if they keep doing it, it’s probably working out.) What did they do right? Wrong?
Who’s in the target audience, how many are there, what kind of people are they, how do we reach them?
Short term goals? Long term objective? Timing?

The objective (always just one) is realistic given the background we acquired when we learned everything relevant. Strategy is relevant to the objective.

The objective has real numbers with real dates: e.g. sell 5,000 Ford Explorers at an average price of $29,000 by the end of Q2, 2010. This scares the pants off non-DMers; we think it’s fun (doing the work and scaring the pants off non-DMers).

Then comes the whole mishmash of execution stuff: creative, lists, media, response management, tracking, offers, upsell, follow up sell … every one of which has a killer question behind it: What happens when we do this?

We test everything. We find out what works and we do more of it. We find out what doesn’t work and we stop doing it. We track response, conversion, CPO, LTV, referrals and we fine tune to get better and better. Most of all, we’re strictly accountable for everything we do.

Is there a large and powerful group that should do this sort of stuff and doesn’t? And what’s the worst thing that could happen if we replaced that group with a tight group of direct marketers?