On Nov. 18th Carmina Mortillaro asked on behalf of a friend if donors
should be acknowledged on exhibit labels.

It appears that many of the comments regarding thus crediting donors
have come from art museums where it is standard practice to name donors
on exhibit labels because usually each item is shown as a stand-alone,
even while grouped by theme in a gallery  Since the original inquiry was
for a history museum, I think it's important to point out that this is
usually done differently in history and natural history museums where
exhibits frequently are arranged in ways that make it nearly impossible
to have individual labels for each item. (Room dioramas, interpretive
exhibits where such labels would disrupt the interpretive design or
'story' line, etc.)

Because of this, it seems preferable in history and natural history
museums to have a policy that you do *not* give donor credit with each
exhibited item. (You might be able to sometimes, but if you can't always
the donors are not going to be able to distinguish the difference and
some could end up miffed.)

Find other ways to acknowledge donors.  You can list all new donations
in the newsletter, create a panel at the end of each exhibit with all
names, or list them in a written catalog, etc.  As long as you are
consistent with all donors, they will accept and understand the policy.
It really isn't too hard to explain to them that it would look
ridiculous and spoil a nice exhibit to have labels all over the place.
(Can you really imagine acknowledgement labels on every little item in
an historic house museum?)  You might, if you have time and ability,
notify the donor when something they have given is used in an exhibit.
With computers a form letter personalized with name and items should be
fairly easy to produce. Merely mailing this would provide a caring
personal touch; reinforce your appreciation of their gift; demonstrate
the historic value of the item, and likely cause them to send their
family and friends by to see the exhibit. The letter could even gently
reiterate the 'no donor label' policy, to reinforce the donor education
process.
        Another perhaps less critical reason for a 'no donor label'
policy is that exhibit labels are read by hundreds or thousands of
people, of whom all but a few couldn't care less about who the donor is.
It's extraneous information that distracts from the message of the
exhibit.
        Finally, speaking from personal experience, even trying to do
what the donor(s) would like can get pretty complicated. My family has
donated to a museum in another state where *no one* seeing an exhibit
there would recognize our name. I see no purpose what-so-ever in having
our name on the items when they are exhibited, and in fact would prefer
that they did not, for security reasons. Additionally, in the case of a
different donation, the name of the previous owners (my parents) of the
donated items would be vastly more likely to be meaningful to some
visitors than my own name as donor.
        Lucy Skjelstad
        Corvallis, Oregon