[Organizers] to conflict or not to conflict?

Thought-provoking feedback so far. A few devil's advocate points. (a) If it's the case of a dance that's already failing to thrive, then why should other organizers feel responsible for not conflicting? I mean, there must be reasons why it's failing to thrive. Perhaps it would be better in the long run to have that dance die altogether. (b) There are plenty of business models that use the cooperative model (versus cutthroat competitive). Still, I don't quite see the parallel in terms of not competing. I think starting a brand new series (which may or may not succeed, by the way!) in possible competition with an existing series is not at all like, for example, the cutthroat methods of Whole Foods moving in next door to the local food co-op (which had been thriving, but just can't compete with a giant like WF and subsequently goes belly up). (c) One could also say, if the new series does succeed and ends up bringing in lots of new dancers (as Jeff K pointed out), then it actually could improve the standing of the existing series. (By raising the profile of the dance form in the area, by having the existing series be an alternative to the new one, etc etc.) (d) If we want to mutually support other organizers, is "not-competing" the best way to do it? If we prop up a losing proposition, then what does that do for the organizing skills of those (possibly ineffective) dance organizers? Should we instead encourage (or, by competing, make it necessary for) them to re-think and re-envision their approach to improve their chances of success? For the sake of discussion, Chrissy Fowler "Dance, when you're broken open... dance, when you're perfectly free" ~ Rumi chrissyfowler.com belfastflyingshoes.org westbranchwords.com