Five Feasibility Study Myths That Hold Campaigns Back

Some long-held assumptions about feasibility studies can slow an organization’s progress long before a campaign begins. Many teams believe they should polish every detail, finalize every plan, and prepare elaborate materials before speaking with their largest supporters. But when you pause to look closely, those assumptions create missed opportunities and weaker campaign momentum.

In this episode of All About Capital Campaigns, Andrea Kihlstedt and Capital Campaign Pro’s Vice President and Chief Happiness Officer, Sarah Plimpton, take a close look at five common myths surrounding feasibility studies and shed light on a more effective approach: the Guided Feasibility Study Model. Drawing from years of collective experience and more than one hundred guided studies, they share why early donor conversations strengthen your case, sharpen your direction, and build the kind of relationships that fuel successful campaigns.

Andrea explains how her early career conducting traditional studies revealed a key flaw. Consultants were often the first people to speak with major donors about a project, even though they were not the ones who knew the organization’s plans with the same depth and nuance. When donors asked questions about the vision, program details, or the reasoning behind the project, the consultant could only speak to what they had been told. That disconnect revealed the need for a new structure—one that placed executive directors, board chairs, and other leaders directly in front of donors while still benefiting from consultant expertise behind the scenes.

Sarah then walks through the first myth: the belief that everything must be polished before meeting with donors. She describes how donors respond with enthusiasm when they are invited to help shape ideas during the early planning stage. Instead of feeling like they are being presented with a finished product, donors feel trusted. They ask better questions, offer insight leaders may not have considered, and place greater value on the project because they helped strengthen it.

Andrea and Sarah then address the idea that leaders do not have enough time for this level of involvement. They share stories of executive directors who initially felt overwhelmed yet soon realized that these donor conversations were the most important work they could be doing. When leaders reorganize their priorities, delegate less essential tasks, and commit to these meetings, the entire campaign gains clarity.

Next, they take on the myth that feasibility studies slow things down. In practice, Andrea and Sarah have seen the opposite. The guided model leads to early relationship-building, clearer messaging, and, on occasion, early commitments. Leaders walk into the quiet phase with stronger groundwork already in place because cultivation has been happening throughout the study.

Finally, they explain why consultant involvement still matters even when leaders conduct the interviews. Consultants train interviewers, shape the right questions, help teams gather useful information, and interpret feedback so the organization can produce a meaningful report for its board. Without this support, leaders may struggle to make sense of what they hear or overlook important themes.

The episode closes with a shared observation: leaders consistently find these conversations enjoyable. Many say they wish the study could continue because the discussions feel energizing and deeply connected to their mission. Andrea notes that this shift often strengthens fundraising long after the campaign is complete.

If your organization is preparing for a major project or exploring the first steps of campaign planning, this episode offers guidance that will help you build stronger relationships and clearer direction from the start.

For more feasibility study guidance, be sure to download our free Ultimate Guide to Capital Campaign Feasibility Studies.