Originally Posted by kirb
Lower the price 10k and you kill resale of all bikes you sold before, piss off all who bought in early, and lose credibility to others who may consider buying. Buell did that when they did the closeout (wow, there were a few loyalists who were PISSED), but they didn't have to worry about future sales.
The other side of that coin would be the need for more MFG space, more bodies to build bikes, less able to ebb and flow with the market.
Maybe selling 10 times less bikes for $10k more each is better than the other way around.
All of those choices will depend on a variety of factors; making blanket statements like you are doing is wrong and pointless. You can't say for sure that there are "far more downsides to reducing prices than upsides"; there may or may not be.
Buells started out very expensive, and got more reasonably priced over time, without running into any of what you are talking about. And I'm not talking about the closeout situation; I'm talking about the1990's and 2000's. Indeed, that's the plan for the current EBR as well -- start with limited production of an expensive handmade bike, and expand into larger-scale production of more affordable future models.
Maybe it will be better for Motus to be an expensive limited niche bike, and maybe not. I didn't say they would definitely choose one over the other; what I said was that if they do reasonably well, higher production would allow them the option of lowering prices and thus expanding their market. As with my comments in the same paragraph about restoring DFI to the design, and implementing shaft drive, I was saying that those were all things I would like to see, that I thought would be improvements.