The Campaign Planning Study: Why One of the Most Consequential Investments Before Your Campaign Is Also the Most Frequently Skipped
Table of Contents
What a Planning Study Actually Is — and How It Differs From a Feasibility Study (Section 1 of 9)
The Six Types of Planning Studies — Including a Volunteer and Pro Bono Option — and How to Choose the Right One (Section 2 of 9)
The Private Hesitations Nobody Talks About — and What They Actually Mean (Section 3 of 9)
Why the Cost Objection Gets It Exactly Backwards (Section 4 of 9)
What Happens in the Interviews — the Human Intelligence No Survey Can Produce (Section 5 of 9)
How Planning Study Intelligence Produces Better Gift Charts (Section 6 of 9)
A Real Case: PASA and the Value of a Planning Study (Section 7 of 9)
What a Planning Study Produces Beyond the Financial Projection — Including What the Report Should Contain (Section 8 of 9)
When to Commission a Study — and When to Wait (Section 9 of 9)
Executive Summary
The campaign planning study is among the most consequential investments a nonprofit can make before launching a capital campaign — and one that is frequently skipped. It is skipped not because organizations doubt its value but because the cost feels significant in isolation, because the internal momentum toward the campaign is difficult to slow once it has built, and because organizations rarely say publicly what they say privately: we are afraid of what the study might tell us.
Martin Novom, lead editor of The Fundraising Feasibility Study: It's Not About the Money (AFP/Wiley Fund Development Series) — a landmark treatment of planning studies drawing on the experience of senior fundraising professionals across virtually every sector of the nonprofit world — named the dynamic precisely in that title and then spent an entire book developing it. A planning study is not primarily a financial exercise. It is, in Novom's framing, a relational and organizational diagnostic that happens to produce financial intelligence as its most visible output. The deeper outputs — an honest assessment of organizational readiness, a cultivation opportunity with major prospects, a case for support tested against real donor responses, and a gift chart grounded in actual donor intelligence — are what make the study the foundation on which every subsequent campaign decision rests.
Novom and his contributing authors — Simone Joyaux, Linda Lysakowski, Eugene Scanlan, and others representing virtually every sector of the nonprofit world — make a point that the field has been slow to absorb: the organizations that resist or shortcut the planning study process tend to be among the organizations that struggle in the middle years of a campaign, not because their goal was wrong but because the intelligence that would have shaped it was never gathered. The planning study does not create a successful campaign. It reveals whether one is possible — and what it will take to make it so.
This white paper covers what a planning study is, the six types available to organizations at different stages and budgets — including a skilled volunteer and pro bono option that most practitioners do not discuss and that makes the study accessible to organizations that genuinely cannot afford external counsel — the private hesitations that underlie the cost objection, what actually happens in the interviews, how the intelligence produced connects to the gift chart, a real case from PASA, what the final report should contain, and when to commission a study versus when to wait.
Section 1 of 9 — What a Planning Study Actually Is — and How It Differs From a Feasibility Study
The terms planning study and feasibility study are used interchangeably in the field, and for most practical purposes they describe the same process. The distinction worth drawing is one of emphasis: a feasibility study asks, "can we do this?" while a planning study asks, "how should we do this, who is ready to lead it, and what will it take to succeed?" The planning study is the more comprehensive instrument — it encompasses feasibility but extends into organizational readiness, case for support strength, leadership capacity, and donor cultivation intelligence that shapes the entire campaign structure.
A capital campaign planning study consists of research, interviews, and analyses that together measure a nonprofit's preparedness to undertake a proposed major fundraising effort and, crucially, tell organizational leadership not just whether the campaign is feasible but how to make it succeed. Novom's framework is precise on this point: the study's value is not the binary yes/no on feasibility but the textured understanding of organizational and donor readiness that tends to distinguish campaigns that reach their goals from those that stall midway through.
In practice, a full planning study involves three components working together. The first is background research: a thorough review of the organization's fundraising history, donor base, case for support, leadership capacity, and comparable campaigns in the sector. The second is stakeholder interviews: confidential one-on-one conversations with 25 to 125 major donors, board members, community leaders, and prospective donors, conducted by independent fundraising counsel rather than internal staff. The third is a digital survey: a structured questionnaire sent to a broader group of non-major donors to capture giving interests, awareness of the campaign need, and general organizational perception.
The result is a written report — typically 40 to 80 pages — that tells organizational leadership not just whether the campaign is feasible but what it will take to succeed, who is ready to lead it, what the case for support needs to say, and what the gift chart's upper tiers are likely to contain. That report is the foundation on which every subsequent campaign decision is built, and its value compounds throughout the campaign rather than being consumed at the outset. The type of study commissioned, however, should be calibrated to the organization's stage, budget, and campaign complexity.
Section 2 of 9 — The Six Types of Planning Studies — and How to Choose the Right One
Not every organization needs the same kind of planning study, and the cost and scope of the process can be calibrated thoughtfully. Six distinct models are available, each suited to different organizational situations.
1. The Traditional Full Planning Study
The most comprehensive model and the one most commonly recommended for capital campaigns above $3 million. An independent fundraising counsel firm designs and facilitates the full process: background research, 25 to 125 confidential stakeholder interviews, a digital survey to the broader donor base, analysis of all findings, and a written report with specific recommendations. This model typically costs $15,000 to $40,000 depending on scope, campaign complexity, and geographic spread of the stakeholder pool. It tends to produce the most complete intelligence available before a campaign launch, because the independence of the interviewer tends to produce candor that internal staff find difficult to replicate, and the breadth of the stakeholder pool produces intelligence that internal processes rarely match.
2. The Guided Feasibility Study
A newer model in which internal staff lead the interview process with coaching and framework support from an external consultant. This approach gives your team the hands-on opportunity to lead the process, which helps you connect with stakeholders and grow institutional skills simultaneously. The guided model typically costs $5,000 to $15,000 for the consultant coaching component and produces meaningful organizational development benefits, since staff who conduct the interviews build cultivation relationships and institutional knowledge through the process itself. The limitation is candor: donors and community leaders tend to be more forthcoming with an independent external interviewer than with organizational staff, particularly about leadership concerns and reservations about the campaign. For organizations with strong stakeholder relationships and high internal capacity for honest conversation, the guided model is a legitimate option. For organizations with any significant leadership concerns or donor relationship complexity, the traditional model is stronger.
3. The Internal Readiness Assessment
A pre-study diagnostic conducted before engaging external counsel, designed to answer the question: are we ready to commission a planning study? The internal readiness assessment examines board giving, case for support development, donor database quality, staff capacity, and the organization's track record with major gifts. It is typically conducted internally with guidance from a development consultant and costs little beyond staff time. Organizations that commission a planning study before completing an internal readiness assessment often discover through the study's findings that they needed to do the readiness work first — a sequence that costs more time and money than the reverse order. For the full framework for this kind of internal assessment, see the companion white paper on this blog: The Development Audit: How to Diagnose Your Fundraising Program and Build a Roadmap for Growth.
4. The Digital Survey Study
A lower-cost alternative appropriate for campaigns under $1 million or for organizations whose major gift pools are small enough that a full interview process would exhaust the prospect list rather than sample it. A structured digital survey is sent to the organization's full donor base, with targeted follow-up conversations conducted by staff or board members with the highest-capacity respondents. This model can be conducted for under $5,000 and produces useful intelligence about general donor awareness, giving interest, and campaign priorities. Its limitation is depth: the survey captures stated intentions rather than the nuanced intelligence — the hesitations, the relationship signals, the potential giving ranges — that only a confidential one-on-one interview can produce.
5. The Pro Bono or Skilled Volunteer Study
A fifth option that is underused and worth naming explicitly: a planning study conducted in whole or in part through skilled volunteers or pro bono professional services. This model is most relevant for organizations whose budget genuinely cannot accommodate even the guided feasibility study cost range, but whose donor community is strong enough to make the study worthwhile.
The key distinction is between general volunteers and skilled volunteers. A general volunteer without fundraising research experience conducting donor interviews is likely to produce incomplete or skewed intelligence — the interview technique matters, and untrained interviewers frequently hear what they hope to hear rather than what the donor is actually communicating. A skilled volunteer with a background in research, consulting, fundraising counsel, or major gift fundraising can conduct a meaningful study if properly briefed, and the cost to the organization is primarily the coordination time.
The Taproot Foundation — founded in 2001 and the pioneering organization in skills-based volunteering in the United States — operates Taproot Plus (taprootfoundation.org), a free platform that connects nonprofits with more than 175,000 skilled professionals who donate their expertise pro bono across business planning, strategy, finance, and communications. While planning study facilitation is not a standard Taproot service category, the platform is worth exploring for organizations that need interview design, survey construction, or data analysis support as components of a study they are partially conducting themselves.
Retired fundraising counsel, former major gifts officers, and senior development directors who have moved into other roles are also strong candidates for pro bono study facilitation — and they are often findable through AFP chapter networks, local community foundation connections, and peer referrals from comparable organizations. The AFP consultant directory (afpglobal.org) is a reasonable starting point for identifying professionals in this network.
The pro bono model carries the same limitation as the guided feasibility study: the independence that produces candor is harder to establish when the interviewer is a known community figure rather than a credentialed external professional. For organizations whose donor relationships are genuinely open and whose organizational culture supports honest feedback, however, a well-structured pro bono study conducted by a skilled volunteer can produce intelligence that is meaningfully better than nothing — and considerably better than proceeding to campaign with no study at all.
6. The Development Audit as Precursor
For organizations genuinely uncertain whether they are ready to plan a campaign at all, a development audit — a structured review of the full fundraising program's health — is often the right first step before any form of planning study is commissioned. The audit surfaces the organizational conditions that a planning study will test: donor retention rates, major gift pipeline depth, board giving, staff capacity, and case for support quality. An organization that commissions a planning study and receives a report recommending significant pre-campaign work has effectively paid for a planning study to tell them what a development audit would have revealed at lower cost and with greater operational specificity. The development audit white paper on this blog — The Development Audit: How to Diagnose Your Fundraising Program and Build a Roadmap for Growth — provides the complete framework for this precursor step and is recommended reading before any planning study is commissioned.
Where to find practical guidance and qualified counsel. For organizations looking for free practical resources on planning study methodology, Capital Campaign Pro (capitalcampaignpro.com) — the platform built by Amy Eisenstein and Andrea Kihlstedt — offers accessible guides, sample interview questions, and a feasibility study framework drawn from hundreds of campaign engagements. For organizations seeking qualified counsel to conduct the study, the AFP consultant directory (afpglobal.org) and the Giving Institute (givinginstitute.org) are the appropriate starting points, as described in the companion white paper The Fundraising Counsel Relationship: A Guide for Nonprofit Leaders.
With the five types understood and practical resources in hand, the hesitations that most commonly prevent organizations from commissioning a study at all deserve honest examination.
Section 3 of 9 — The Private Hesitations Nobody Talks About — and What They Actually Mean
Organizations rarely document their doubts publicly. Nonprofits present a confident face to their donor communities, their boards, and their funders — and the internal uncertainty that precedes a major campaign decision tends to be managed in private conversations, not official minutes.
But in thirty years of working with organizations preparing for significant campaigns, the questions I hear privately are remarkably consistent. Are we ready? Will our donors support this at the level we need? What if the study tells us something we don't want to hear? What if we commission a study and the findings recommend we wait — and then we are stuck, having spent $20,000 to be told to slow down?
These are honest questions and they deserve honest answers.
The fear that a planning study will deliver unwelcome findings is the most common hesitation — and it reflects a misunderstanding of what unwelcome findings are worth. A study that tells an organization its campaign goal is too high, its case for support is not compelling to the donors it needs, or its executive leadership does not yet have the major donor relationships the campaign requires is not a study that has failed the organization. It is a study that has just saved the organization from a public failure that would have cost far more — in time, in donor relationships, and in organizational reputation — than the study itself.
Novom's contributing author Simone Joyaux makes this point directly in The Fundraising Feasibility Study: It's Not About the Money: the organizations that benefit most from planning studies are often the ones that find the findings most uncomfortable. Discomfort in the study report is signal, not noise — it is pointing toward the specific work that needs to happen before the campaign can succeed, and the organization that acts on that signal arrives at its campaign launch in a fundamentally different position than the one that ignored it.
The planning study exists precisely to answer the private questions before the organization makes a public promise. It is the instrument that converts private uncertainty into organizational intelligence — and that intelligence, however uncomfortable some of it may be, is what a confident campaign is actually built on.
Section 4 of 9 — Why the Cost Objection Gets It Exactly Backwards
The most common reason organizations skip the planning study is cost. The traditional full study runs $15,000 to $40,000, and for an organization whose annual budget is $1 million and whose campaign goal is $2 million, that investment can feel disproportionate before a single dollar of campaign revenue has been raised.
Novom addresses this objection directly in the framing of his book and the arguments his contributors develop across its chapters. The study's cost, he argues, is not $15,000 to $40,000 in isolation — it is $15,000 to $40,000 weighed against the cost of what happens when the study is skipped and the campaign proceeds on incomplete intelligence. That comparison almost always resolves in the study's favor.
Consider what a failed or miscalibrated campaign actually costs. A campaign that sets the wrong goal alienates the major donors who were approached with a number that felt either too small to be serious or too large to be credible. A campaign that launches without sufficient major gift commitments in the quiet phase stalls publicly — a failure that damages organizational reputation in ways that can take years to repair. A campaign built on a case for support that has never been tested with real donors produces an ask that lands without resonance and converts at a fraction of its potential. A campaign whose volunteer leadership burns out in year two of a three-year effort leaves the organization exhausted and the campaign incomplete.
None of these outcomes are hypothetical. They describe what happens, with some regularity, to organizations that proceed to campaign without the intelligence a planning study would have provided — and sometimes the failure is not in skipping the study but in refusing to act on what the study reveals.
I was once asked to review the fundraising program for an HIV/AIDS Youth Camp. The organization had a budget for only half of what a full study would cost, but I could see that their donors were emotionally committed to the program — I was among their active donors myself — and I believed the intelligence was there to be gathered. I agreed to the assignment and interviewed forty current donors.
The findings were strong. The study showed the camp could raise $850,000 — nearly four times its $220,000 annual budget. The donors were ready. The case was compelling. The momentum was real.
The CEO declined to move forward. His concern was that a successful campaign for the camp might overshadow the larger agency and its many other programs — a concern I understood and was prepared to address. But he would not meet with me to hear how the camp's momentum could be channeled to illuminate the agency rather than compete with it. He was, in the words of one of his own executive team members, known for putting his head in the sand when the stakes felt high.
The result was a modest increase in annual revenue for the camp — something the staff was glad to have — and an $850,000 opportunity that was never pursued. The evidence existed. The donor readiness was documented. The path was clear. What was missing was a leader willing to hear what the study had found — and willing to explore how the camp's demonstrated momentum could be channeled into a campaign that illuminated the whole agency rather than competing with it. That conversation never happened, and the agency never knew what it had within reach.
This is the other side of the cost objection: the study's value is not only lost when it is skipped but also when it is commissioned and then set aside. Novom's contributors name this pattern explicitly — organizations that commission the study and then decline to act on its findings experience the worst of both worlds, having paid for the intelligence and then declined to use it. The study's value is realized only when its findings shape the campaign that follows — and what those findings most depend on is the quality of the interviews at their heart.
Section 5 of 9 — What Happens in the Interviews — the Human Intelligence No Survey Can Produce
The interview component of a planning study is where the process's most valuable intelligence is generated, and it is the component most misunderstood by organizations evaluating whether to commission a study.
The interviews are not primarily data collection exercises, though they produce data. They are cultivation conversations — often the first time a major donor has been asked directly, by a credible external professional, what they think of the organization's leadership, case for support, and campaign readiness. What donors say in these conversations, and how they say it, shapes every subsequent campaign decision.
A thoughtful interviewee list should include current and former board members, current and former major gift donors, planned gift or legacy donors, frequent volunteers, prospective donors, community stakeholders, and recipients of the organization's services. The list should include both enthusiastic supporters and more skeptical voices — both provide valuable intelligence, and a study whose interviewee list includes only enthusiastic supporters produces a distorted picture that sets the campaign up for surprises.
The questions an experienced consultant asks in these interviews go well beyond "would you give?" They explore what the donor understands about the organization's leadership and direction, whether the case for support resonates with their own values and philanthropic priorities, what they see as the organization's most important strengths and most significant vulnerabilities, and whether they would be willing to play a role in the campaign — as a donor, a volunteer leader, or both. Some example questions a consultant might ask include: What is your history with this organization? Do you perceive the fundraising goal as attainable? Are you inspired to get involved in an official volunteer capacity? Would you make a gift to the campaign?
The independence of the interviewer is not a procedural preference. It is the condition under which candor becomes possible. A major donor who has reservations about the executive director's leadership, or who believes the campaign's proposed use of funds is misaligned with the organization's mission, will rarely say so to a staff member or board volunteer — but will often say it to an independent external professional who has established confidentiality, whose job is to hear the full picture, and who has no stake in the outcome being positive. That candor is the planning study's most irreplaceable raw material, and it is what the digital survey complement cannot produce. The survey captures stated intentions; the interview reveals nuanced intelligence about hesitations, relationship signals, and potential giving ranges that only a skilled human conversation can surface.
Section 6 of 9 — How Planning Study Intelligence Produces Better Gift Charts
The connection between the planning study and the gift chart is one of the most practically important and least discussed dimensions of the planning study process, and it deserves specific attention.
A gift chart built without planning study data is a projection based on what the organization hopes its donors will give. A gift chart built with planning study data is a structure based on what donors have actually indicated they are likely to give — and the difference in campaign performance between these two starting points tends to be substantial.
During confidential interviews, major donors frequently share their potential giving range with the external consultant — not always explicitly, but often in language that an experienced consultant can interpret with reasonable confidence. "We have been supporters for years and this feels like our moment to do something significant," or "I have been thinking about whether a named fund might make sense for our family" — these signals, recorded systematically across all interviews, allow the consultant to construct a gift chart whose upper tiers are populated by real prospect intelligence rather than aspirational arithmetic.
The practical implication is significant: an organization that commissions a planning study and then builds its gift chart from the study's findings arrives at campaign launch with a far clearer picture of which prospects need to be cultivated for lead gifts, what asking amounts are grounded in realistic capacity assessments, and which relationships need the most attention during the quiet phase before the public announcement. For a full explanation of how gift charts work and two sample charts at the $1 million and $8 million levels, see the companion post on this blog: How to Create and Use a Fundraising Gift Range Chart. The real case that follows shows how this dynamic played out for one organization that took the planning study process seriously.
Section 7 of 9 — A Real Case: PASA and the Value of a Planning Study
PASA — the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture — offers a public example of how this plays out in practice, and their experience illustrates the planning study's value in ways that abstract arguments cannot.
PASA knew a major fundraising effort was coming, but they were unsure how to begin. Their board interviewed fifteen consulting firms before commissioning a planning study — a sign of caution, not confusion, and a degree of diligence that most organizations do not bring to this decision. In most cases, five interviews with counsel would be sufficient to choose a partner; their fifteen-firm search reflects how seriously they took the decision and how much they understood was riding on it.
Once the study began, the picture changed. Donors spoke plainly about the organization's leadership, the urgency of the work, and the scale of support they could imagine if the campaign were structured well. The interviews surfaced both enthusiasm and concerns — the full range of donor perception that an internal team, however talented, could not have produced on its own. The findings gave PASA a clearer sense of timing, a more grounded campaign goal, and a sharper understanding of who among their supporters was ready to lead.
Novom's framework helps interpret what PASA experienced. The study did not create the confidence that launched the campaign. It revealed the confidence that was already present in the donor community — confidence the organization could not see from the inside, because organizations can rarely accurately assess their own standing with the people who matter most to their campaigns. The study made that standing visible, and the campaign that followed was built on actual donor intelligence rather than internal projection.
The PASA experience also illustrates the private hesitations discussed in Section 3. The fifteen-firm search was not bureaucratic thoroughness. It was an organization taking seriously the question "what if the study tells us something we don't want to hear?" — and deciding that the answer to that question was worth finding out before the campaign began. The study answered it. The campaign benefited from the answer. And what that answer was made of — what a well-constructed planning study report should contain — is what the next section addresses.
Section 8 of 9 — What a Planning Study Produces Beyond the Financial Projection — Including What the Report Should Contain
The written report that concludes a planning study is most often discussed in terms of its financial recommendation — the study suggests a campaign goal of $4.5 million rather than the $6 million the organization had hoped for, or it confirms that the $3 million goal is achievable and the timing is right. That financial conclusion is important, but it is among the study's least durable outputs.
Novom's contributors are consistent on this point throughout the book: the organizations that get the most from a planning study are the ones that read and act on the full report — not just the financial recommendation on page three but the organizational intelligence distributed across all forty to eighty pages. Here is what a well-constructed planning study report should contain, and what development directors and executive leaders should hold their consultants accountable for delivering.
The goal recommendation and rationale. Not just a number but the specific reasoning behind it: which donors indicated readiness to give at what levels, what the interviewee consensus on organizational readiness suggests about campaign timing, and what conditions would need to be met for the goal to be achievable at the higher end of the range the study identifies.
The gift chart with planning study intelligence incorporated. The upper tiers of the gift chart should reflect specific prospect intelligence from the interviews — not named donors in the written report, which would violate confidentiality, but gift levels grounded in the interview findings rather than generic pyramid ratios. This is the gift chart that a campaign counsel and chief development officer use to build the quiet phase strategy.
The donor readiness assessment. A systematic evaluation of which stakeholders are ready to give at lead gift levels, which need further cultivation before an ask is appropriate, and which expressed hesitations that need to be addressed before they can be considered reliable campaign supporters. This section is the campaign's prospect management starting point.
The case for support feedback. A summary of how interviewees responded to the campaign's proposed case — what language resonated, what did not, which aspects of the case were immediately compelling, and which needed to be developed further. The case for support that emerges from this feedback tends to be stronger than one written in isolation, because it reflects how committed donors naturally describe the mission rather than how the organization has been describing itself.
The leadership capacity findings. An honest assessment of whether the board, the executive director, and the volunteer leadership are positioned to sustain a multi-year campaign. If there are gaps — a board whose giving has not reached the level the campaign requires, an executive director whose major donor relationships are still developing, a volunteer leadership pool that is thin — this section names them and recommends the specific actions required before the campaign launches.
The pre-campaign recommendations. The specific steps the organization should take before launching the campaign, sequenced and prioritized. Some of these will be immediately actionable; others will require months of work. The organization that treats this section as the campaign's actual starting point — rather than the recommendation to proceed as the starting point — is the organization that arrives at launch in the strongest possible position. The final question is when that starting point is actually ready to be reached.
Section 9 of 9 — When to Commission a Study — and When to Wait
A planning study is most valuable when the organization meets a specific set of readiness conditions — and it is most likely to produce findings that require significant pre-campaign work, at significant cost, when those conditions are not yet met.
Commission a planning study when: the organization has a compelling and specific case for support; the board has made its own gifts and is prepared to participate actively in the campaign; the organization has at least a preliminary prospect list of major donors with some history of engagement; the executive director has been in the role long enough to have established credibility with the donor community; and the organization has a genuine and urgent need that a campaign can address within a defined timeframe.
Wait on the planning study when: the organization is in executive leadership transition; the board has not yet achieved meaningful giving participation; the case for support is still in development; or the organization has just completed another major campaign and the donor community has not had sufficient time to recover their capacity and enthusiasm. In any of these situations, the study's findings are likely to recommend the pre-campaign work that the organization should have done before commissioning the study — and the more cost-effective sequence is to complete that work first.
A development audit — a structured review of the full fundraising program — is often the right precursor to a planning study for organizations uncertain about their readiness. For the complete framework for that assessment, see the companion white paper on this blog: The Development Audit: How to Diagnose Your Fundraising Program and Build a Roadmap for Growth. For the full strategic framework for campaigns of every type, including the readiness criteria and the role of the planning study within the broader campaign arc, see the companion white paper: Straight Talk on Campaigns.
When the readiness conditions are met and the planning study is commissioned, the investment tends to return its cost many times over — not as a line item in the campaign budget but as the foundation on which the campaign is built. The PASA experience illustrates this return: the study did not tell them what they wanted to hear. It told them what they needed to know. And the campaign that followed was built on that knowledge.
Organizations that shortcut this step frequently discover, somewhere in year two of a three-year campaign, that the intelligence they needed was available to them before they began. The planning study exists to provide that intelligence at the moment it can most productively shape the campaign — before the first public announcement, the first major ask, and the first opportunity to get the foundation wrong.
A Note on Use
This white paper is offered freely for educational purposes. Please share it with executive directors, development directors, board members, and campaign committee members who may find it useful — provided the author's byline remains intact: By Laurence A. Pagnoni, MPA. Reproduction in publications, training programs, or institutional materials requires attribution. To request permission or discuss reprint rights, please reach out through the contact page.
What has your experience been with planning studies — and has a study ever revealed something that changed the direction of a campaign? Share your experience in the comments section of the website.
