A feasibility study may tell the museum's governing board that a campaign
just isn't capable of succeeding -- that the prospective major donors just
won't respond under current circumstances.  Sometimes it is because these
folks don't like the director, or curator, or a faction in control of the
board.  The study tests the institution's goals, what it will cost to make
progress toward meeting them, and its readiness and chances for success.

Sometimes the study reports are wrong -- they urge against a campaign, and
the board goes ahead anyway and succeeds.  Or vice versa.

The key to the study is the "outside expert" coming in, interviewing the
right people in total confidence, as a lawyer might.

A fundraising firm doesn't "raise" the money.  It keeps the volunteers on
their toes and tries to force their adherence to a schedule. It urges the
governing board to be patient -- if patience is called for -- before
halting a campaign that seems to be sputtering.  And the consultant keeps
the staff busy as well.  I much prefer the in-house campaign, if someone on
the staff has the energy, personality, and determination to get it done.
The CEO of a smaller museum may be that person. And the CEO risks his/her
credibility and job by taking on this challenge.  The consultant simply
goes on to the next assignment, no matter what the outcome, and either
credits or blames the volunteers for success or failure.

Ross Weeks
[log in to unmask]

----------
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Feasibility Studies
> Date: Friday, April 11, 1997 3:08 PM
>
> Is a professional feasibility study a must when planning a major capital
> fund drive or does anyone have an in-house success story to tell?
>
> What about hiring a consulting firm to run the campaign vs. doing it
> in-house?
>
> I'd appreciate hearing from you.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ann Kiewel
> Holland Historical Trust
> [log in to unmask]