I chuckle every time I read this explanation for the tire compound changes.
Who are all these people who complained and who,
exactly, did they complain to? I hate to be cynical here, but I don't believe this "owner complaint" story for a minute.
Everyone knows that corporate decisions are strongly influenced by the corporate bean counters, the attorneys (liability concerns), market studies, the whims and sometimes even the ideology of the Board and CEO, etc. etc. Sure customer satisfaction is also considered, but that usually comes somewhere further down the line. Just think about it.
Doesn't the following scenario sound much more reasonable....
BRP attorneys, being always concerned about product liability as they should be, consult the engineers and conclude that it would be safer to use a softer compound tire to get better road traction. The bean counters also endorse this because, as we all know, there is a huge markup on the Kendra tires, and they can make twice as much profit from them if the tires need to be replaced twice as often. It's a win/win deal, so they do it.
However, what they didn't count on is how many more owners would be upset by the shorter tire life and consequently switch to automobile tires. Now BRP is losing sales on Kendra tires, and the bean counters (not the customers) complain. So, in an attempt to recover the replacement tire market share, BRP converts back to the harder, longer lasting, compound. The marketing folks say, as they always do, "We are doing this because we are responsive to customer demands." ...because to make customers feel good is their job.
I am not bashing BRP, here. They are simply looking out for their bottom line, as every corporation must. Every successful corporation is driven by the same sort of decision making process. nojoke
Joe and Ann stay busy taking brand new out of the crate just assembled by the dealer bikes and aligning the front wheels.
