Whether or not this practice is "dishonest" or not depends entirely on what
you communicate to the donor.  It is not dishonest if they understand up
front that they are not specifically funding the exhibition; rather, they
may be funding part of the exhibition and making an additional contribution
toward the unrestricted operating budget.  Don't get me wrong, though.
This must be an absolutely clear understanding!
 
In trying to understand why someone might engage in such a practice, you
must consider the difference between someone funding a specific program or
project with funds restricted for this purpose and someone providing
unrestricted operating dollars and receiving public recognition for the
gift.  Getting your name on an exhibition (or a building, research center,
etc.) may not come as a result of a single gift but as a reward for many
gifts of support over a long period of time.  Such recognition is similar
to getting your name on an institutional donor wall.  I think this practice
can be a very effective device for expressing appreciation to donors so
long, as I mention above, the donor is aware of what they have or haven't
paid for and what the recognition represents.
 
 
>Here is a question for those in art museums who are responsible for
>recognition labeling on the walls of special exhibitions and in press
>releases, invitations, and so on.
>
>It has been my understanding that when we acknowledge exhibition
>underwriting in the galleries and in publications, we acknowledge funding
>the actual level that it cost to produce or rent the exhibition.  In other
>words, if we could find $10,000 in support to cover an exhibition that cost
>us $10,000, we would recognize that support gladly, but not seek more.  It
>has been suggested to me that we approach exhibition support recognition as
>a source of additional income and sell support recognition beyond the actual
>cost of the exhibition.  For example, if we could get 5 sponsors to pay
>$5,000 each to support that $10,000 exhibition, we should do so, making
>$15,000.  Those who have suggested this to me, believe that some companies
>will go for this, even if they know that they are collectively paying more
>than the exhibition cost.
>
>Am I behind the times, or does this seem just a teensy bit dishonest
>somehow, even if the companies know the score?
>Stephen C. McGough, Ph.D., Director
>University of Oregon Museum of Art
>Eugene, Oregon 97403-1223
>(503) 346-0972
>FAX: (505) 346-2220
>[log in to unmask]
 
Richard Chute                           [log in to unmask]
 
Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden         Claremont, CA 91711
Phone:  (909) 625-8767, ext. 222
FAX:  (909) 626-6760