"just get 100 times as many kiters...and a fewer companies to make kites"? please, taut, do you really believe it yourself?
kites a already manufactured dirt cheap.
how come small brand with 3000 or 5000 customers keeps prices lower than top five brands?
oh, i know how.
they don't make dealers meetings at tropical islands locations,
they don't make expensive bikini promotional videos (pretty lame ones in my opinion) in tropical locations,
they don't have to "design" weird new leading edge shapes (which have nothing to do with aerodynamics) every year just to redesign those shapes as the revolutionary ones the very next year,
they don't spend more money on composing the marketing texts then on actual product testings,
they don't share huge proportion of the retail price with half-educated dealers just to be represented in any given area of the world,
and may be their share holders don't demand yearly increase in royalties.
and if you did not notice it yet, speaking positively about unjustified high prices level is not really a marketing argument.
it is just same old pimping...
You come off sounding a little bitter.
Now for your question. If I believe in economies of scale? Well yes. It is pretty well proven. It is one of those things you really cannot chose to believe or not..like gravity or evolution it is a fact.
Are there other facets to it to price than volume? Obviously.
If you have another theory on how the market functions please enlighten us with your wealth of knowledge. If it has merit, you'd probably end up with nobel prize.
Now are there other ways to reduce cost? Sure there are. Nobody has said anything else, but if you want to know the best way to reduce per item cost, then it is by producing more items..I'd say the per item the variable cost is higher than sunk cost.. Simple as that. I don't think many of these companies have shareholders. And when you complain about unjustified cost..who are you to judge that? Accept that there are advantages and disadvantages in any model.
But sure there are other variables like quality, attention to detail...that would also keep the cost down. The point is that this is pretty simple stuff.
I'm not sure who spiked your soup with retard elixir and misplaced anger today, but your perception of what innovation is, and that if something doesn't fit your perspective of innovation then it must be done for marketing is bollocks. Any argument like that would lead to no innovation at all. Sure it would be cheap to make the same kite every year, but surely you can feel the difference between kites through the past 10 years?
On a different note, it absolutely blows my mind that so many people who criticize the sigma shape never flew one, or maybe flew early version and compare it with kites today. I think it is a pity they let the Bolt go. It was a fantastic kite.