Aaron Goldblatt makes some useful comments about the similarities and
differences between NFP's and FP's.  He says, though, that one of the
reasons for the development of NFP status was to create protection from
market pressures.  As I understand it, NFP status was created as an
incentive for organizations willing to undertake socially useful
activities that were, nonetheless, not sufficiently attractive or
profitable for business to become involved with.
    Herein is my concern with this.  Now that certain aspects of
museum work have been shown to be profitable, businesses can undertake
those particular endeavors and make money.  Sometimes these operations
look like museums or have museum-like qualities, and therefore tend
to confuse the public.  But the profitability seems to depend on
eliminating those those things that museums must do to be museums
from the agenda of activity.  In other words, doing a for-profit
exhibit on birds eggs might be profitable, but not when you factor
in the cost of care in perpetuity for the eggs.  Businesses don't
have to worry about the perpetuity part, thus can be profitable,
thus cannot really be museums.  I don't mean to go a long way with
this but published the gist of my own feelings in a recent
piece in Curator, "Are Museums Still Necessary."  Not a plug for
my article, mind you, but just a notice of where one view on the
subject is available in fuller form.
Chuck Watkins
The Appalachian Cultural Museum