The July/August issue of Muse contains an article by Toni Lin on “The Role of Commodification in Archival Institutions.” Lin does an excellent job of outlining the perceived pros and cons of commidification and the impact it can have on public access, archival funding, and preservation.
The article concludes that some level of commodification may be necessary for many institutions and can serve as a way to bolster shrinking revenues. Research services, reproduction of archival materials and legal sale of deaccessioned materials can be viable funding supplementation options.
Lin notes that there must be an balance been the need to provide free open access to archives and charging for research or reproduction fees. She suggests that archival institutions should benefit financially from doing research instead of the money going private researchers. This isn’t a bad idea — but for many archives adding in-depth research services simply isn’t possible. Staffing constraints, particularly in smaller institutions, often make offering full research services impossible.
Digital reproduction and user fees are another way in which archives can recoup or raise funding. Many institutions have opted to allow users to obtain personal use or research copies of materials free of charge. This is then balanced by charging for high resolution images, commercial uses, and publication quality prints. At times navigating copyright and privacy legislation can make this reproduction and user fee service more challenging. And these fees often don’t make a huge amount of money but they do help offset costs.
Overall, Lin’s piece highlights the changing financial landscape facing archives and other heritage organizations. It is becoming increasingly necessary for organizations to look to new funding sources and ideas. Commodification and using collections to raise funds isn’t a new idea, but it is one that might gain more prominence as budgets continue to shrink.