What does it mean?

Question

Hi,What is the message of the bold part?However, while it might be true to say that there are slightly fewer American-owned brands in the top 100 today compared with a few years ago, this is as much to do with market changes and self-inflicted corporate wounds as American heritage.Regards,Nesa

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

nesa this is as much to do with market changes and self-inflicted corporate wounds as American heritage.

This is because of market changes and weak competition by US makers as well as because of any attitudes other countries may have about the US. (Maybe.)

Avangi · Answer

nesa this is as much to do with market changes and self-inflicted corporate wounds as American heritage.

Of course "this" refers to the first clause.
The bold part is an attempt to explain WHY American-owned brands are in decline.

It is NOT [exclusively] because of the intrinsic qualities/properties of American things, or because of feelings about America.
It is more/as much because the market itself has changed (what do people want??); and because American marketers/merchandisers have done stupid things (shot themselves in the foot).

Nesa · Answer

So if it saying about the American brands' weakness, why the next line is mentioning their strength? I mean I don't see any relation between two parts particularly because I feel the absence of something like a conjunction (maybe still could be the one).
But I don't get my 2nd post.

More than 60% of the world’s most valuable brands are still American owned. Despite opinion polls and anti-American demonstrations, consumers can be radical at the research questionnaire and reactionary at the checkout.

Avangi · Answer

However, while it might be true to say that there are slightly fewer American-owned brands in the top 100 today compared with a few years ago,this is as much to do with market changes and self-inflicted corporate wounds as American heritage.

nesaSo if it saying about the American brands' weakness, why the next line is mentioning their strength?

I agree with you that the two parts of the original sentence are not complementary. Perhaps if prior context about "American heritage" were included, it would make more sense.
However, if you're talking about your original post, I don't see any mention of strength.
The first part says, "Yes, it's true that American owned brands are in decline.
The second part says, "This is not because of anti-American feeling, but because of a general decline in business, and bad management. There's no mention of strength! .

nesaBut I don't get my 2nd post.

More than 60% of the world’s most valuable brands are still American owned. Despite opinion polls and anti-American demonstrations, consumers can be radical at the research questionnaire and reactionary at the checkout. .
This probably refers to something in prior context. Nothing you've quoted says that America's position is weak. It simply says that it's not as strong as it used to be.
But I certainly agree that the writing is not good. The "logic" is confused, and the use of conjunctions is misleading, as you suggest.

There's an old saying, "Put your money where your mouth is."
I think your last quote is trying to say that consumers claim to be anti-American (in the research questionnaires), but then they buy the products anyway (at the checkout).
Or, it could be trying to say the exact opposite!

Nesa · Answer

I really appreciate your elaborated reply Avangi.

AvangiThe second part says, "This is not because of anti-American feeling, but because of a general decline in business, and bad management. There's no mention of strength! .

Actually I saw this part as a weakness.

And this part as a strength:
More than 60% of the world’s most valuable brands are still American owned.

But I admit if the words "strength & weakness" are not appropriate for this text.

After all I think that the writer is not a native, so some parts are irrelevant (this is just my opinion).

Regards,
Nesa

Avangi · Answer

The writing is not the best. Some of it doesn't make a lot of sense.
As I suggested earlier, prior context might help to explain what he's really trying to say.
(After all, your post begins with "However,"
This suggests to me that he's "arguing" with someone or something in prior context, or possibly with himself -- or "thinking out loud," as they say.
He gives us a point for one side, and then a point for the other side.)
More than 60% of the world’s most valuable brands are still American owned.
The operative word here is "still."
He's saying, "Okay, the American owned brands are not as strong as they used to be. But they're still pretty strong!"
"Still" can mean "nevertheless," as well as "even now."

What does it mean?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions