Today's New York Times had for me an interesting article on the fact that today and through the Christmas season, 6 circuses will be operating in the City. 

The article more or less introduced the question of "fair" competition 5
"outsiders" invading the Big Apple Circus' (a nonprofit) home turf at one of its most important seasons.

One might alternatively questioned, although the article did not, the "fairness" of having a nonprofit compete in a world where for-profit circuses are doing quite fine, thank you very much.

There is a basic premise that guides the existence/purpose of a nonprofit -- fill the void where there is no incentive by the for-profit sector and no mandate by the public sector.  To strengthen this position, a nonprofit status ensures an income tax exemption to the nonprofit and of course, tax deductible status for gifts.  The idea of unfair competition then enters the fray when nonprofits perform functions where the non profit's tax status offers an edge competitively.

So, should we be worried about the issue as to whether the Big Apple folks can compete with the for-profit, albeit, deep-pocketed circuses visiting on its home turf at an important income-generating time of the year?  Should we not believe that the the Big Apple Circus offering, price and location as well as the way folks hear about its offerings (more through free use of the media but still some paid advertising and promotion (give-aways) PLUS ITS NONPROFIT MISSION should more than enable it to be competitive? 

So, what was the point of the article to begin with AND, is there really a market need for a nonprofit circus?