Stihl ms 170 vs ms 171

[ILENGINE]

Just look at the big mower manufacturer companies and how many other companies they have purchased and then discontinued the name. Looks at how many companies MTD own, or Husqvarna, or Toro, or Briggs. And then at how many of those brands that those companies own that are farmed out to other companies. Toro's consumer push and riding mowers are farmed to MTD. Briggs owns Snapper and Murray, but the Walmart units are made by MTD, Almost to the point that MTD makes all the consumer box store mowers.

 

[bertsmobile1]

I remember when poulan used to be good stuff then the Electrolux debacle. Like the troy bilt MTD thing. Seems like everytime a brand name changes owners the product goes to manure. I think companies just buy brands for the name and then sell trash on brand recognition till buyers wise up then sell it to someone else. Many manufacturers are trying to win the race to the bottom.

It all comes down to a gross failure in the free marketing system.
To work properly it requires that the market ( consumers ) are fully informed.
However now days the average purchaser has no idea how to evaluate a product, a skill that has largely been lost due to "Work" becoming pushing buttons & life swiping on a phone screen.
Once you are no longer able to asses a product on quality, longevity & ease of service there is little left but colour, brand recognition, price & recommendation .
And now day unfortunately the latter has been taken up by the pig ignorant group of sub human morons loosly termed "informers" who strangely enough are mostly big brested girlies with a strong sexual presence on line.
Since the foundation pilliar of the free trade marketing system is now broken & governments refuse to enforce quality standards it can and will only go one way,,,, downhill.

Add to that selfishness & greed , we all want a $ 2000 saw but we will only pay $ 200 for it and the long term survival for any quality consummer druable manufacturer is bleak indeed.
Husqvarna has finally realized that the 70's & 80's buisness plan of "owing the market" can not happen in a free trade world because there will always be another source that for whatever reason will be able to under cut you to a point that your business will become unviable .

Then there is the corperate govenance.
The pooled capital system ( stock market ) that most large companies are run under will always get a board that are "all made out of ticky tacky & all think just the same ".
And in the case of the MBA graduates it is all about maximum profit and that is made by buying public recognition ( trust & reputation ) and sucking it dry thus one by one you put a trusted name on trash till the public no longer believe in the product then drop that name & trash another one.
The risk adverse will not allocate the money required to upgrade a product or manufacturing process unless there is a guaranteed return greater than the money invested plus the alternative income lost by diverting that money from other investments or paying higher dividends , the latter of which pushes up the share price thus pushes up the boards claims for excessive bonuses.

As a general rule, once the original owners name vanishes from the management the business is on borrowed time.