Are you a member of the AASLH (American Association for State and Local History)? Are you expecting them to give you the latest information about software packages to help you organize your collection? You might be out of luck if you want any meaningful guidance from them.
I was searching for Museum Software on Google a few weeks ago, just to see where the Museum Archive software project turned up in the search results. It was nice to see two entries in the top ten. I then read the snippet underneath the number one entry, which said:
Approved by the American Association of State and Local History for museums and historical societies.
I thought that was cool, so I decided to contact the AASLH to see what it took to be “approved” by their organization. A week went by; no reply. I sent a follow-up email; once again, no reply. After another week or so, I forwarded my question to other staff members listed on the organization’s web site. Finally, I received a nice reply from one of them. The reply was nice in the sense that it was pleasant and polite, but the substance of the answer struck a nerve:
“At this point, though, we endorse only one software and that’s [a well-known software package]. We have had a formal partnership with them for many years…”
The bottom line seems to be that the AASLH does not review software packages or provide information to their members about new offerings in the collection management software field. They have a business relationship with a single vendor, and it is that vendor’s package that they endorse and push on their site.
The software they endorse is probably a fine product. I’ve never used it, but I’ve heard that many organizations do. The problem is that it is rather expensive, particularly if your organization has limited resources (which includes most small nonprofits and local historical societies). I specifically started the Museum Archive software project to address this concern. Why should a smaller organization have to struggle to catalog their collection using a spreadsheet or a text document these days? My software is designed to help them, and you cannot beat the price (It’s free!)
Wait a minute - aren’t you selling a book?
As to my own motivations for this project: Some might object by pointing out that the premium edition is only free to people who buy the book, so it is not really free. Two points: First, the basic edition is totally free. Second, you really must have never tried to sell a book. Anyone who has knows that the less-than-generous author’s share of the sale price is not a real motivator. My share of the proceeds thus far means that I have made almost one dollar per hour on this project. I should report myself to the Department of Labor. Not to mention that I spend more time setting up premium users and answering their questions than I care to count.
Wrong or just cheesey?
I have no objection to a nonprofit organization like the AASLH cutting a deal with a vendor and making a few bucks. The part that bothers me is that they allow the vendor to claim “approval”, and they themselves talk about “endorsing” a product, in a way that implies testing and evaluation and comparison with other offerings. Why not say to AASLH members, “Hey, we like this product and if you buy it, you also help us out financially. But you should know that there are other options, including these products…”
A nonprofit organization exists to fulfill a mission. The AASLH mission statement talks about providing leadership to its members. If by “leadership” they mean to “influence or induce”, then this software endorsement arrangment makes sense. Call me crazy, but I think that most nonprofits use the term “leadership” to mean something different: to “guide in direction, course, action or opinion” - to provide information to stakeholders to help them in their own missions.
With the AASLH’s current practice of limiting approval and endorsement to their business partner’s product, they have no shot at providing their stakeholders with much needed guidance. You might say that the AASLH’s mission is impossible.