A campaign feasibility study is one of the most powerful tools in a nonprofit’s strategic arsenal. Done well, it provides clarity on donor sentiment, leadership readiness, and the viability of ambitious goals. Done poorly, it can mislead decision-makers, waste resources, and even damage relationships.
Feasibility studies are about more than data. They are an opportunity build trust and educate your community about the nuances of your mission and organization. Here are the most common pitfalls leaders often encounter, and how to avoid them.
Pitfall 1: Treating the Study as a Fundraising Forecast
One of the biggest misconceptions is viewing a feasibility study as a crystal ball for campaign revenue. While studies test gift potential and donor enthusiasm, they are not guarantees. They provide directional insight, not hard pledges.
Avoid it by:
- Framing the study as a readiness assessment, not a revenue projection.
- Using findings to shape strategy such as gift tables, timelines, and staffing, not to lock in campaign targets prematurely.
Pitfall 2: Asking the Wrong Questions
A feasibility study is only as good as the questions it asks. Too often, interviews focus narrowly on gift capacity or willingness to give, ignoring broader issues like organizational credibility, leadership confidence, and case clarity.
Avoid it by:
- Including questions about mission alignment, perceived impact, and leadership strength.
- Testing the case for support: Does it resonate? Is it compelling? Does it feel urgent and achievable?
One of the most valuable outcomes from a study is a better understanding of what inspires the generosity of your community.
Pitfall 3: Overlooking Internal Readiness
Some organizations rush into feasibility studies before addressing internal gaps such as unclear strategic plans, weak board engagement, or underdeveloped donor relationships. The result is feedback that reflects organizational uncertainty rather than donor reluctance.
Avoid it by:
- Ensuring your strategic plan is current and campaign priorities are clear.
- Securing board commitment before external testing. If trustees aren’t driving the effort, donors will sense it.
A feasibility study should be allowed to validate readiness and external interest vs being tasked with exposing avoidable internal weaknesses.
Pitfall 4: Misinterpreting Donor Feedback
Donor interviews are nuanced. A “yes” may mean “yes, if conditions are met.” A “maybe” may signal enthusiasm tempered by timing or confidence. Misreading these cues can lead to inflated expectations, or conversely, unnecessary caution.
Avoid it by:
- Engaging experienced consultants who understand philanthropic language and context.
- Looking for patterns rather than focusing on isolated comments. One donor’s hesitation may be personal; five donors’ hesitation may indicate an issue you should address.
Interpretating donor conversations is nuanced and should lean on internal and external expertise to ensure details are heard and understood.
Pitfall 5: Ignoring External Factors
Economic conditions, sector trends, and competing campaigns all shape donor behavior. A feasibility study that ignores these dynamics risks painting an incomplete picture of the risks and opportunities of a major campaign.
Avoid it by:
- Incorporating questions about timing and external pressures.
- Reviewing regional and sector benchmarks to contextualize findings.
Your organization and your donors all exist within a broader context. A good study avoids cookie cutter templates and is tailored to fit your situation.
Pitfall 6: Treating the Study as a Transaction
A feasibility study is actually part of the campaign itself. Every interview is a chance to deepen relationships, affirm donor value, and invite engagement. If you treat interviews as perfunctory, you miss this strategic benefit.
Avoid it by:
- Framing interviews as conversations, not interrogations.
- Following up with gratitude and transparency about next steps.
Participating in a study is a rewarding stewardship moment that allows donors to be heard and appreciated by an organization they care about.
Pitfall 7: Failing to Act on Findings
Completing a feasibility study and then shelving the recommendations is probably the costliest thing an organization to do. If findings reveal gaps in leadership, donor engagement, or infrastructure, boards and leadership need to address them before launching any campaign.
Avoid it by:
- Developing an action plan tied to study insights.
- Communicating findings to leadership and board with clarity and candor.
A feasibility study is a great investment. You need to use it if you want to see a return.
A well-executed feasibility study does more than test numbers. It validates readiness, strengthens donor relationships, and provides strategic clarity. Avoiding pitfalls and wasted effort requires rigor, humility, and a commitment to act on what you learn. When approached thoughtfully, a feasibility study is a key ingredient in the ultimate success of your campaign.