If you 'll excuse the comparison, Gucci did the same thing in the 80s/90s by licensing its logo to airfresheners and anything that would bring them a few bucks, ruining the brand name. They've now seen the light and reveresed course repositioning it is super high end (again).
I see the same thing in the future for snap on. Selling out the future for short term profits. The execs won't be there longer than a few years and they can say they increased revenue ** %, reap their bonuses, and be off to the next company to run into the ground.
Cynical, eh? I wish I didn't believe it were true. Sad.
Not cynical, just how companies are run, especially if a company is publicly owned. Squeeze all the margins you can, no matter the cost. It's funny because companies that have remained private always use that fact as an advantage.
I went to interview with Aldi (ultra low end grocery store headquartered in and privately owned in Germany) and they went on and on about how they don't have to answer to stockholders and that lets them do what they think is right. Of course you know you still have to answer to the execs, but there isn't pressure to do short term things that reward executives and kill the company.
Same thing with Menard's (for you midwesterners), employees actually tout it at the stores. And Publix is privately owned by the employees, so they have a very interesting angle to pitch. They are growing like a wildfire in the southeast mainly due to customer service and clean stores, since the prices are higher than most grocery chains.
I have a feeling that the current corporate structure of a public company isn't sustainable, especially exec. compensation. Companies are going to evolve into something better that is a balance between short term shareholder gains and long-term success.