Now that Shell owns uaker State what is the difference between the two????

 

Shell purchased Pennzoil which had recently acquired Quaker State and also owns Wolf's Head. They all operate individually under their own management. So each one makes their own business decisions based on the the available market and supply. Each company makes individual decisions concerning their crude oil supply, base stock, refining and blending technology, additive's, labor and marketing. To do otherwise would discourage innovation and competitiveness.

Even if they were to sell crude oil, base stock, additives or license technology to one another, they would still do so as if they were doing business with any other company. Each company is responsible for it's own bottom line. It's bad business all around for any one to operate at a sacrifice for another.

Now it was different when Chevron and Gulf merged in 1986. Gulf was completely absorbed by Chevron and the Gulf brand completely dissapeared and was assimilated by Chevron. I think now business practices have changed as evident by the new "ChevronTexaco". At least for the time being, Chevron and Texaco market their own brands individually. Same with ExxonMobile.

I think the old theory that dominating the market by sheer size to capture the biggest market share has been replaced by giving the customer more brand choice. That way whether you buy Shell, Pennzoil, Quaker State or Wolf's Head... it all looks good in the Shell Oil Annual Report and gives a good return to the shareholders. If you look at the charter or goals for most publicly owed companies, one of the top priority's is usually listed as "increasing shareholder value."

So back to the topic's original question: If you were to rephrase the question as "Now that Shell owns (Q)uaker State is there a difference between the two????", I would have to say, yes.