I think I see it differently - it reminds me of a conversation with someone who said their market 10 years ago was a 50 year old white male, who lived in
x. Their market is now a 60 year old white male, who lives in
x... ie they don't have a new market... it's remained the same - this was a big worry for them and they were then looking at what was next for their brand.
Yes, Ultimate (and Kimberly) build a good quality product, but in an era of conspicuous consumption an evolving design doesn't signify "I've bought a new one". As their products don't wear or date particularly, one built in 2010 looks very much like one built last year.
This means that:
a) there isn't a need to buy a new one to replace one that is wearing out/falling apart
b) you look flash, even with an older one
c) they hold their value because they don't date
An example of the age/wear and tear, is the change between my parents selling their caravan's after 3 years (UK made Swifts) to changing their 'vans every 5-7 years (Knaus or Fendt - German made) because the build quality was so much better, and they didn't date as much. UK vans often change colours ever so slightly which means you can date them to within a year or so by the colours of the stripes etc, as opposed to Aussie vans that don't change much exterior wise year to year.
Now, if we look at the typical buyer, they are a bit older, a bit more affluent and often no kids. Some are retired, some are semi-retired and some have the ability to free up capital in their house/put it on finance. This is in contrast to many 30-40 year olds who are beginning to experience mortgage stress (ie over 1/3 of their household income in rent or mortgage payments) and a bit of financial pressure, so the $50k+ market for a camper isn't going to be looking that appealing. Also as those who are retiring are possibly beginning to realise that their capital gain in their house might need to be passed on to the next generation rather than selling the lot and buying a flash outfit for the big lap, this might be beginning to tighten the market at that end.
Ultimately, this boils down to:
1) Small market to begin with, and therefore difficult to achieve economies of scale due to limit sales numbers. The ability to quickly scale up is not there as the market demand isn't there. They might not have access to the right capital to allow an increase in production, or they might not fit in the government schemes neatly that allow for growth (for example, if in regional NSW they might have been eligible for the
regional growth loan)
2) Product design that evolves rather revolutionary (and revolutionary design is expensive)
3) Consumers are nearly dying off and those that aren't dying off are choosing to buy something else instead for any number of reasons (some of which others have identified)
At the end of the day, the cost of production is a factor but I don't think it's the be all or end all - market changes are as crucial, and the market is both the demand (consumer) and supply (competition or substitutes).
