I own a small consulting business in Portland, Oregon, established in 2009 as a limited liability corporation. I chose that structure, in part because of the protection it afforded my personal worth, but also so that I might one day be able to hire additional historians. Similarly, I chose the name Alder, in actuality for several reasons, but a large one being that this company would grow beyond myself. I am working to build a brand in Oregon and beyond.
My business will reach five years this October, and it is still just me. I have formed some strong professional alliances in Portland, however these are with businesses that offer services beyond the field of public history. I mainly focus on the development of museum exhibits and often when approached by a prospective client, I recommend the services of a specific graphic design firm. The client will then contract separately with the design firm and me. By having such an alliance, I am able to provide a client with the tools to see an exhibit completed from start to finish. I provide the research, writing, image and artifact acquisition, and installation of the exhibit, while the design firm provides the physical look to the show and orchestrates the printing of text panels and object labels. In some instances, I have also brought a video production company into a project. I choose to not subcontract these companies, even though I highly recommend their services. I do not want to be directly responsible for them adhering to deadlines or for handling their financial compensation.
Though this structure has served me well, in this working group I would like to learn how I can eventually either work with historians or subcontract them so that I might grow my business. Last November I met with public historians in Melbourne, Australia, and found that several consultants there had formed strong alliances. Some formed business partnerships, sharing equal responsibility for their respective firms. Others collaborated on specific projects, for finite periods of time. The structure that most intrigued me was that of a company that hired young professionals on a commission basis. Two recent public history graduates, who eventually hired additional staff so they could continue to take on projects, established the company. Perhaps the business models of our Australian colleagues might be replicated in the United States.
As I work to build a brand with my business and continue to specialize in somewhat niche markets – exhibits, history of medicine, etc. – I would like to eventually bring someone on board who could provide expertise and skill sets that I do not offer myself, such as Section 106 review. Historic preservation is one of the largest fields for consulting historians and though I specialized in that in graduate school, beyond the occasional National Register nomination, my work has thus far centered on projects beyond preservation. Being able to hire or partner with a historian with a strong preservation background – as an aside the University of Oregon offers a graduate program specifically in historic preservation – would allow me to grow my business. At the moment, I do not have the time or manpower to go after local, state, and federal preservation contracts.
Forming consulting alliances would also benefit my business geographically. At the moment, my work is almost exclusively focused on Oregon, and more specifically, Portland history. My skills could translate to other parts of the country, but I lack the contacts and knowledge of local historical resources to attempt to move my work outside of Oregon’s boundaries.
Back to introductory post about this Working Group.