“Campaign: yes! Feasibility Study: no thank you.”
These are the words sticking with me, that the Executive Director used to describe her organization’s current stance on the doorstep of a potential capital campaign.
As many consultants working in the capital campaign arena will tell you these days, organizations—particularly of the small and mid-sized variety—are soliciting campaign counsel and resisting what some may call the most critical step of any capital campaign, the feasibility study. In summary, a feasibility, often done by someone independent and outside the organization seeks to test the level of philanthropic support that might be available for your organization, a particular project, or a potential campaign.
Of course somewhere in here this all relates to the turbulent climate of our economy, right? Well of course it does. After all, The National Bureau of Economic Research has said that the recession was over in June 2009, so we should all feel better, right? Unfortunately, your donors may not.
With four feasibility studies currently underway, ranging from just under $1 million to $10 million, the donors that I have had the pleasure of talking with in the course of the past 60 days are uncertain at best. Words that you rarely used to hear uttered in a feasibility study interview have now become commonplace. In fact, an interview without a mention of descriptors like: concerned, cautious, unstable, or conservative, would be an outlier more than the rule these days. Beyond sharing their feelings about an uncertain future, many donors are honestly and openly low-balling their commitments to potential campaigns.
While any feasibility study has a degree of uncertainty and error until the gift is solicited and secured, all appearances and many donors own comments seem to mean that the risk of having your feasibility study come in way under what’s really possible is a reality of undertaking a feasibility study today. Additionally, the fudge factor, faith factor, wild-card factor, or whatever you want to call it, in guessing what level of support exists outside of those few donors that were interviewed, is likely to be a larger percentage of a suggested campaign goal today more than ever. This means that more organizations are likely to consider launching campaigns today based on soft guesses and faith rather than identified gifts.
So, if you’re faced with a potential campaign in the near future, the question you and your board are likely asking is whether we spend the $20,000-$50,000 or more—depending on the size and scope of the study—that you are likely to spend in a feasibility study to have your donors intentionally low-ball their commitment to you?
Rarely would I advocate skipping this critical step, especially if you truly don’t have a good feel for a donor or prospective donor’s capacity and potential commitment to your campaign, but the reality is that you have to consider it today.
Here are the real questions you are going to have to ask yourself to determine the best process for your situation:
1. If we undertake a study and learn that many of our key donors are committing at a far lower level than anyone anticipated, can we accept that reduced level of support?
2. If not, are we comfortable in acknowledging the level of support they offered in the study, yet asking for a larger commitment anyway?
3. Do we have a real need for a larger commitment? Have we developed and conveyed the case for why we need support at a higher level?
4. Are there other circumstances which will help motivate your donors or prospective donors to make a larger commitment, such as another donor they consider to be a peer of theirs, a matching/challenge opportunity, or in one of the most unique approaches we’ve directed, a mega-stretch gift from the organization’s CEO/Executive Director or other highly respected leader in the organization that shocks, motivates, or quite simply guilts your donors into a larger commitment.
5. Conversely, can we afford to risk blindly asking for a campaign gift and either underestimating the donor’s capacity and leaving money on the table or dealing with the awkwardness of overestimating a donor’s capacity?
All said, these questions are not much different than any organization should have been asking itself in the past when considering a feasibility study, but the difference is that the outcome of a feasibility study today might be shockingly low gift commitments. And the real question is how your organization and its leadership will react to that news and respond accordingly to remind your donors why your mission—and this upcoming campaign—are important to them through the appropriate donor cultivation and stewardship activities which will only serve to strengthen donor relationships you have built over time.
About the author: Nick Parkevich, MPA, CFRE, is a consultant with Loring, Sternberg & Associates (LSA). Contact Nick at nick@LoringSternberg.com or visit
www.LoringSternberg.com for more info
. Founded in 1996, LSA offers a variety of services focused on addressing organizational deficiencies and increasing an organization’s fundraising capacity for small and mid-sized nonprofits who seek to seize opportunities they have never considered possible in the past.
“Campaign, yes. Feasibility Study, no thank you.” These are the words sticking with me, that the Executive Director used to describe her organization’s current stance on the doorstep of a potential capital camp
Subscribe to this comment's feed
