A topic I've been spinning my wheels about a lot lately and want to express my opinion about and hopefully get some feedback is big corporate buy-outs. Certainly many of us could brainstorm for hours about what is flawed in U.S. corporate structure and accountability, so much so that it's difficult to find a starting point. I'm very passionate about outdoor pursuits so I find that to be a great jumping off point, but it is not the only industry to be effected by corporate buy-outs or to have great implications for consumers. There has been a trend in the outdoor industry for big companies, many of which have roots in other consumer products, to buy a company largely for its name and then exploit that name until it no longer resonates with consumers. There are a myriad of reasons why the original owners sell; under capitalization of the company and large personal financial incentives probably are the two biggest reasons. So, to accurately draw the picture, we have a company that was started by a grassroots owner who was very hand's on and built products with great consumer appeal. Many of these owners have struggled constantly with raising capital to grow and then one day while seeking more investment capital a much bigger corporation (usually hundreds of times bigger) comes in and offers to buy them out with plenty of money going directly into their pockets and a lot of times they retain a silent share of ownership.

It's hard to fault these owners. They've worked hard and often times been responsible for a lot of innovation in the field and they have a chance to finally make a lot of money. But, the problem for me lies in the fact that often the new "parent" company changes every element of the company that the small owner took pride in and used to market his or her company. The new owners utilize the name brand that has a lot of market potential to then push inferior products with much greater margins until the consumer is "wise" to the fact that the products are not at all what they previously had been. A few great examples of this are Gary Fisher and Richey in the bike industry and Chaco footwear.

My question to consumers is whether this is a fair practice and just part of a "capitalist system" or is it deceitful and a kind of after the fact violation of truth in advertising?

Let's use Chaco as our primary example. Chaco innovated a new sandal design that utilises one strap weaving in and out of the foot bed to make a very customizable fit. Their foot beds also fit wider feet which made me a big fan as previously the only option for a sport sandal was Teva which never fit me very well. So, I bought a pair, wore them, and liked them very much. I then realized at the end of the life of my first pair that the company was headquartered in Paonia, Colorado and tried to use sustainable practices to make their sandals. They had a standing offer that for a nominal fee they would replace straps in existing sandals and resole them if necessary which solved two of the most likely failures that one could experience with their product. I started working for a rafting company that was also a dealer of Chaco sandals and proudly wore their shoes gladly fitting customers who wanted a pair for themselves.

Several years ago my wife had a pair of Chacos that the glue failed on the soles. No biggie everyone creates a "dud" every once in a while, right?

Well, then the replacements failed in the same way. We were living in Costa Rica and it was difficult and expensive to keep switching the sandals out. We began to dig deeper and realized that it was "a bad batch of glue." Which was in fact true, it was a bad batch of glue in their new factory in China. They had been bought out and canned all their employees in Paonia and moved to China.

So, should a company that marketing themselves as proudly being made in the U.S.A. be allowed to move their production facilities without notifying customers or the general public? Should their be a statue of limitations on advertising? Perhaps a standard to retain a certain number of characteristics of the original company to continue using the name?

These are not questions I have answers to, but ones I think we as consumers should be thinking about.

For a little fun, especially for you other outdoor enthusiasts here is a list of popular brands and there real corporate owners:

Marmot, Volkl, K2, Marker, and Coleman - Jarden Corporation who also own brand names such as Sunbeam, Mr. Coffee, and Bicycle playing cards.

The North Face, Reef, Vans, Eagle Creek, JanSport - VF Corporation who also owns Lee jeans and Wrangler.

Atomic skis, Arc'teryx, Salomon, Suunto, Volant - originally part of the same corporate structure as Phillip Morris Cigarettes, and the distributor of Toyota automobiles, Amer Sports was renamed in 2005 and also owns Wilson raquet sports as the largest single seller of sporting goods.

Calisle, Old Town, Extrasport, Necky Kayaks, Eureka tents - Johnson Outdoors - part of the S.C. Johnson Wax empire

I didn't do a ton of intense research to come up with these and an entirely different story could be written about Patagonia, Burton, or Mountain Hardware and the responsibility a private company has to consumers. There are certainly success stories of companies that stay true to their roots, too!

I'd like to hear from any of you that have any feedback...

Thanks, - Matt